Pollster unpopular with Burr

Now it's Burr's own pollster unpopular with Burr.

Paul Shumaker, the lead consultant for Sen. Richard Burr’s (R-N.C.) re-election campaign, has agreed to pay $1,250 out of his own pocket to cover the cost of a recent survey conducted by his private polling firm because of concerns about how the Federal Election Commission might view the Burr campaign’s use of the survey data.

Yet as Burr keeps telling us, Burr sees no point in polling.

ACORN!!!

Corrupt polling for the corrupt democrat party???? Nothing new here. Just wait until ACORN gets involved in the race.

Public policy polling is bias and they admit it, so why would anyone give them a second thought. Including Burr

A gussy, HA HA HA I thought you could do better than that. Your funny and the spokesman for the democrat party. And all you could come up with is gussy with a P, HA Ha HA. Why don't you say somthing about my mother. HA HA HA

Goshhhhhhh, the nice republicans have come out to play where are you?????????? BURR,BURR,BURR,USA,USA,USA

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Flag-a-fillya! Good job mountain man.

A pollester is democrat with a fetish for flags, and I thought you were smart. LOL.

How do you EVEN just hit the REPLY button and still get the SUBJECT line wrong?

Re: Pollester unpopular with Burr
Submitted by letsallthink@gm... on June 24, 2009 - 9:43pm.

What's a pollester? Your roommate?

Sorry, if you misunderstood my post gosh. By the way did you admit to being a democrat in your post below or did you mispell DEMONCRAKKKKK on purpose. I kind of like typing in all caps. Burr-2010

Yes, Mountainman, I know you do. And no, I misspelled "misspell" on purpose. I'm sure you're right though. BURR FOR'EVA!

But heaven help us all, GOSH, you are one of the crazy people who posts here A LOT! You are like the house guest who never leaves, or who is, regretably, drunk by lunch-time. And if you set up Google alerts to search key words and phrases, don't kill the messenger. You asked for it.

You are the person who leaves 22 replies in an unrelated post - such as gay students, or dog catchers - about your clear disdain for Senator Burr. It is simply wearing us all down.

There are those of us who would love to support you, but even in those responses, you beat us over the head with your superior quoting and editing skills, and your feeble attempts at humor. We all cringe.

But I guess that is simply our lot on this ANONYMOUS board; we can never get enough of GOSH. In caps, in bold, or in google alerts. GOSH is just what we get to endure for our freedom of speech. God Bless America, and thank heaven for GOSH.

Gosh, I think you deserve way more than a Hat tip for the work you do on this blog, and I know everyone who follows this blog would really enjoy seeing you get what you got coming to you.

Well thanks MountainMan. I count that as the third time you've threatened me with bodily harm on this website (HA, HA!), though I will admit you've gotten better at making it less prosecutable! (Like I care.)

My hat is off to you my friend

You can take your thinkin' cap off all you want but that don't make you less of a target when you post your noggin' drippin's on here.

Git r done MountainMan. You are the voice of the Republican resurgence!

And thanks for chiming in on "Pollster unpopular with Burr."

I know you burned your Hamburger Helper to make tonight's veiled physical threat happen. Sorry that whole getting me banned for the bucked toothed, inbred comments didn't work out. Guess truth is still a defense.

PS - If you really still want to sue me for "racial profiling" you had me at calling you a "Republican."

Hat tip: Gosh

Wow, I guess the third time is the charm.

I'd like to thank the following in no particular order. And gosh, I know I'll be forgetting someone.

First of all, thank you Google Alerts for showing me this at 6am yesterday! That was so awesome of you. I know you had other things to do like coming up with creative ways to spin titles about what the majority in our State Legislature did, so thank you.

Second of all, I'd like to thank the crazy people that post here and complain a lot. Without you, the reporters would post more news, so thank you for that.

And third of all, I'd like to thank the button known as CAPS LOCK.

BECAUSE SOMETIES I RA CRAZY AND JUST A BIG OL DEMONCRAACKKK!

But by all means, only close threads when I chime in.

Because you can never get enough of 22 replies in all caps from the minority in this state.

I don't do salt with Tequila. It's better cold and straight.

I have to do something surprising, but I have to agree with both Gosh and Paul.

PPP is a democratic shill machine. I don't think Tom Jensen would deny this; he actually seemed like a fair, and even-handed fellow when I met him a few years back at UNC, where he received (if I recall correctly) the College Republican endorsement for Student Body Pres. He has a goal, and sure, he's conducting the questioning in a manner that would enhance that goal. I agree that, in his capacity as a pollster, no Democrat worth their salt would want PPP's advice or polling if they just sugar-coated the truth or flat-out lied about their techniques or results.

I will say, however, that no group, whether Civitas or PPP is going to use the numbers they get from pollsters in a forthright manner. Its not in how you take the polls, really, its in your actual use of them.

If you take a poll that is slightly skewed against Burr (whom I strongly support, by the way) that shows Burr doing poorly, this encourages more people to think that Burr is doing a poor job. Its a chicken before the egg question - "which came first, the polling results or the reputation for poor work." Soon polls become an Ouroboros of sorts, at which point they're just another form of political advertisement.

So, really what I'm saying is PPP can do whatever it wants (because the last thing I'd want is for Civitas or the Pope Center to be called into question also, regardless of their techniques), but it is the press' responsibility to report accurately.

I agree with Burr that not stating that the firm that does the polling is a Democratic firm is unethical. What it comes down to is being free and unregulated political advertisement; in addition, the "scientific" nature of the polling is similar to, say, "scientific expert witnesses" in a trial -- sometimes people rely too much on the idea that the data or evidence presented is "scientific" and fail to question it for themselves. That's why, at least in trials, expert testimony can be excluded for being too useful or too persuasive.

Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling has no more credibility than NBC, ABC, or MSNBC. All of these networks skew their reporting and articles to favor liberal Democratic candidates. For Tom to say he is not cooking the numbers is being dishonest. He can and has fashioned the questions to get the response he wants. Studies have said and many polling experts have admitted that you ask a question one way it comes out 60-40. You ask the same question in a leading way and you get the result 40-60. Tom Jensen needs to change his firms name to Public Policy Democratic Consultants.

The Civitas Institute is a positve example on what is a honest policy firm. They have a 3rd party do their polling and is hands off on the received data. Unlike PPP, the Civitas Institute, John Locke Foundation, and many other groups are interested in what is best for North Carolina. PPP is striclty into getting Democrats elected and do not care what they have done or will do (i.e. Easley and Perdue).

Tom Jensen has access to the data and the questions asked. Tom Jensen does NOT have the same level of credibility of the neutral polling firms. PPP is strictly and will always be a Democratic consulting firm.