Breaking News: Pro-Clinton push poll erupts in California

Ed Coghlan was just starting to prepare his dinner in the northern San Fernando Valley the other night when the phone rang. The caller was very friendly. He identified himself as a pollster who wanted to ask registered independents like Coghlan a few questions about the presidential race and all the candidates for Super Tuesday's California primary.

Ed, who's a former news director for a local TV station, was curious. He said, "Sure, go ahead."

But a few minutes into the conversation Ed says he noticed a strange pattern developing to the questions. First of all, the "pollster" was only asking about four candidates, three Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, who was still in the race at the time -- and one Republican -- John McCain.

Also, every question about Clinton was curiously positive, Coghlan recalls. The caller said things like, if you knew that Sen. Clinton believed the country had a serious home mortgage problem and had made proposals to....

freeze mortgage rates and save families from foreclosure, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for her?

Ed said, of course, more likely.

Every question about the other candidates was negative. If Ed knew, for instance, that as a state senator Obama had voted "present" 43 times instead of taking a yes or no stand "for what he believed," would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?

"That's when I caught on," said Coghlan. He realized then that he was being push-polled. That malicious political virus that is designed not to elicit answers but to spread positive information about one candidate and negative information about all others under the guise of an honest poll had arrived in Southern California within days of the important election.

It could become an issue in the closing hours of the campaign.

Someone who obviously favors Hillary Clinton is paying an unidentified company to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters, who can, according to California party rules, opt to vote in the Democratic but not the Republican primary on Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states will choose a large chunk of the delegates to the parties' national conventions next summer.

Coghlan said he was offended by such underhanded tactics and knew he was going to get out a warning about this dirty trick, but he said he played along for the full 20-minute "poll."

"The guy was very slick, very personable," Coghlan told the Ticket. "He never fell out of character as a pollster the entire time. He seemed interested in my answers and just kept going through his list of questions as if he was noting my answers. He was very good, very smooth."

For instance, the caller inquired, had Ed watched a recent Democratic debate? Ed said yes. And who did Ed think had won the debate? the pollster inquired.

Coghlan replied, honestly, that he thought Edwards had won because he was calmer and more reasoned didn't get involved in all the petty arguing and finger-pointing like the other two. Now, the pollster said, if Ed knew that most people believed John Edwards could not get elected in a general election, would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?

Ed said, oh, well then, less, of course. And the caller appeared to make a note of that.

"He was not pushy at all," Coghlan said. "And at the end he thanked me for giving him my opinions."

Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Clinton campaign. was contacted by e-mail last night. He answered that he was there. He was asked if the Clinton campaign was behind the push-poll, knew who was behind it or had any other information on it. That was at 5:27 p.m. Pacific time Saturday. As of this item's posting time, exactly eight hours later, no reply had been received.

--Andrew Malcolm

Photo: Robyn Beck AFP/Getty Images

Comments

[moonscape]

i had a curious push poll, but it came in the form of a $5 survey. at first i didn't realize i was being push-polled since i was getting paid. expensive way to get votes! i'm in hillary's demographic, i should be voting for her but i'm not. i'll vote for her in the general election over any republican, but my primary vote goes to obama.

as the push-poll continued, when it said something nasty about obama, i'd say it made me more likely to vote for him. positive about clinton? less likely. so, i finish the poll, and 30 minutes later i have another email, re another poll. another $5. this time it was more aggressive. i refused to cooperate. of course, one always has to be 'more likely' or 'less likely' to vote for her, there is no 'neither more nor less' option.

these 'surveys' were a week or so ago. truly odious.

[moonscape]

the push-poll survey that came via email was through a survey company that was obviously targeting certain zip codes. i'm in the sf bay area.

[Keith Henderson]

Politics. As. Usual.

Whether or not this was the doing of the Clinton-controlled Clinton machine, it will be seen as another in a growing list of dirty campaign tactics that have worked to her advantage. Of course, she will be insulated from any blame as usual ("Sometimes Bill gets carried away"). How many times, though, can she count on the voters to swallow a rehearsed denial?

Thanks for the report, as usual.

[Brendan Connell]

That kind of thing is very disgusting.

[Polled out]

More shady business surrounding the Clinton camp.

Who actually thinks that she can beat McCain if she has been McCain-lite all of these years?

[Mike Abramowitz]

Article sounds legitimate to me but have you thought that if you wanted to poison the well with bad thoughts about any candidate, you could make calls of this nature in a counter-insurgency role, i.e., make you competition look bad by shading the questions.

This technique is utilized by all campaigns and this campaign is exceptionally competitive so how do you know who is calling you since they describe themselves as independent pollsters?

Just look at the way the paper and TV media is trying to make the news with regard to certain candidates rather than report the news which is what their charter would dictate - whether that media is liberal or conservative.

[k esslinger]

It's obvious the media bias here is towards Obama or at least the candidates the paper endorses. Again spinning a common practice that all the candidates use as some dirty trick of only the Hillary campaign. Why is it that the only message that is allowed to get through is the nutrionless messages of hope when what we need is help. The writer doesn't want to hear about what Hillary has done. Why not really talk about issues instead of criticizing what is a common tactic of even the LA TIMES. I've received countless calls from the LA Times subscription call center which was actually odious.

[Gene Webb]

The Clintons will never change. Enough said.

[Steve Wimer]

It's just a poll. Obama isn't going to win. Get real. Obama supporters take everything personally, whine, and use the race card. Obama, to his credit, does not. Hillary Clinton is the best choice. If you think "push polls" are a dirty tactic, just wait until the Republicans get started during the final election.

[Julie B.]

Hillary Clinton's sunk to a new LOW. I'm very disappointed in her. Politics as usual doesn't cut it, Never did.

Fortunately Barack Obama deserves the nomination on his own merit. I hope Obama-Edwards is the ticket -- would serve America well.

[Julie B.]

Just because REPUBLICANS DO IT does not make it right.

Calling people out for wrong doing will not be dismissed as whining.

Hillary used to complain about these tactics, now she and Bill have become Rovians themselves.

I was happy to vote for whatever Dem, but after this BS this election cycle? No way. Like so many others, I'm sick of the twisted politics.

Independent Moderate

[Sarah McDonald]

The Clintons sent out false information in every form in Iowa and New Hampshire just prior to the polls so Obama wouldn't have time to find out and defend before people voted. Iowa didn't fall for it, but she made fools out of New Hampshire women who were led to believe Obama was weak on women's rights when he has a 100% rating on pro-choice. Women rose up and voted Hillary.

If you want a President who has no honor or integrity, elect Hillary for 8 more years of hell.

[Joshua]

Has the LA Times endorsed Obama? Because I've been following many articles on the candidates via the internet for the past three months, and ever since the December debates I think, there has been nothing but Clinton degrading articles coming from here...why is that?

First the insinuation that the Clintons are pushing racism between latinos and blacks, and then the allusion to Obama is the Real Deal while the Clintons (yes, both of them) are dirty politicians, even when Obama's campaign were the people who pushed a four page document stating that the Clinton's just might be racists, and now this. . .

[On And On]

The media has endorsed Barack Obama.

But the PEOPLE endorse Hillary Clinton.

[Terri]

First of all, the tactic is NOT utilized by all the campaigns. Neither the Edwards nor the Obama campaign has used push polling. This is now a common practice with the Clintons.

Secondly, you expect Republicans to campaign this way against Democrats. I never thought I'd see the day a Democrat used Karl Rove-style tactics against their own party members. A credible candidate doesn't need to resort to dirty tricks to win.

[Roger C]

This just sounds like a complete bias from the LA Times which obviously supports Obama; but claims to be a honest report instead.What I read is a thinly veiled advertisement for a candidate wrapped up as news story, structured on rubbishing Clinton's character. The writer and the paper who publish this garbage would better serve its readers by reporting on the issues that effect them. Not some Push Poll Article of their own, designed to influence the reader in the same dirty tactics out lined in the story.
Voters deserve better than this, regardless who the candidtates are..... and so do the issues at hand.

[skeptic1]

Any verification of this event, other than one man's word, a man whose background would lead an objective observer to believe that he is more likely than not politically active and engaged, with possible biases himself? Do you simply poison the well without proof that the event occurred at all? If so, then I suppose that I should inform LAT that death threats are being called in to independent voters by the Obama camp. Proof of such???? Why would you need any? With the primary only two days away, and with the Obama bias of LAT apparent for nigh on a year, just go for it!! After all, it's not as if any journalistic standards yet exist which are even capable of being violated in this nation.

[brickbat]

This is exactly why Hillary will not win in November if McCain is the nominee. People are not going to choose the bitter partisan over the perceived grandfatherly 'independent'. It's a recipe for electoral disaster.

As to the claim that the Republicans will behave 'worse'...that may well be fighting the last war. I'm not sure McCain can get away with that - he is dependent, as a Republican in an anti-Bush year -- in maintaining his image as being sincere and pure.

Hillary vs McCain sets the Republican up as being the candidate of change, and the Democrat as being the same old stuff. It would turn logic on its head, but it would happen.

If McCain is the GOP nominee, only Obama has a chance of winning for the Democrats.

[Steve Rimew]

Steve Wimer's post would suggest that the Clinton camp is actually trying to do Obama a service by giving him this prior taste of GOP medicine. Very decent of them, I'm sure!

[Maureen R.]

I can only state that where there is continual smoke it must be coming from a fire.

Every single primary has been marred by Clinton dirty tricks.

I am a life long democrat who has finally learned why the Clintons drive the Republicans crazy.

Some people think its ok to win this way. I for one want a different kind of politics and that is OBAMA.

[phil]

Hilary Clinton is old politics including having to do anything to win, Obama is a refreshing breath of air when it comes to politics.
The best ad he could run is Caroline Kennedy's endorsement!

[tina]

Why do you report this and say nothing about the mailers being sent out by Obama? It's politics and they are both campaigning for the job of the President of the United States. According to the gentleman in the article, the pollster wasn't rude or tried to get him to change how he answered the questions. He asked truthful questions and waited for the answers. How does anyone know it was the Clinton campaign? Ever hear of pretend your the other guy and see how voters are thinking. Was there a call to the Obama campaign to question this story? Has everyone forgotten the sleazy ads before the Nevada caucaus.

[Jake]

The sad reality is----just as the Clintons are dishonest, so are their supporters with negative comments about ANY other candidate. THEIR energy is so DEPRESSING to the country. Any time negative comments are made----the country can GUARANTEE it's coming from the Clintons or a supporter. What's even MORE SAD? They're PROUD of it.

[Frank]

The Chicago Tribune owned LA Times has endorsed Obama so it can be expected that they would be writing non-stories such as this one. The LA Times is pimping for their owner's choice in Chicago. Remember, Obama is from the state that gave us ward politics, fixed elections for JFK and Senator Carol Mosely Braun. The standards for being a senator or politician in Illinois aren't very high.

[Mark]

The Clintons are notorious down-and-dirty politicians. Independents won't stand for it . How can we allow Hillary and Bill Clinton back in the WH for more years of disgraceful, divisive politics? Who are they going to sell the Lincoln bedroom to this time?