Progressives and liberals are at a big disadvantage in some ways. They make up about 29% of this poll's response base. I'm waiting to see how they shape up among other demographics, since that info isn't part of the standard demographic package. I want to know where they fit in financially. One poll question that gives a clue on that is impeachment-- about 47% of people earning over $75K annually fall on either side -- pro or con-- for impeachment. That suggests that there are liberals and progressives in the upper income brackets who can fund liberal campaigns. We can take back the democratic party and take it back from the PACs. I thought this was something you wanted.
Let's talk about the PAC issue. That was a part of the same question-- 87% of Democrats would like to get rid of private contributions and PAC money. Well-- that's not likely when you support candidates who take millions in PAC money and from wealthy donors. This "questionable, meaning nothing" poll, as you call it, showed that over 80% of the respondents are paying attention to the Abramoff Casino corruption drama that's unfolding. I didn't ask the question about the effect of taking PAC money upon the perceived integrity of a Democratic candidate. It would be a good one to ask. But I think acceptance of PAC money could be turned into a potent issue as the reek of corruption coming out of DC gets worse.
Now, if you're referring to the underfunded Pennacchio and Sandals campaigns, there is some truth to what you say. But if the Democrats in PA continue to wake up and take back their party from the centrist hacks, they will not let them annoint the centrist choice.
Ironically, if you were to look at the results of the poll and use the information, rather than argue that it is pointless to get information if you don't have the money to get it out there, you might face the fact that your Newsweek oraclization was premature. You could also make your statement about the questionability of this poll wrong by making this a front-page diary, which would, if you chose to suggest contributions to either Pennacchio or Sandals, provide a landslide of funding to either candidate. That funding "priming of the pump" could do what it takes to turn this election around so a real grassroots progressive could win it. I hope you'll reconsider your interpretation of the meaning of "this" poll and not be stuck, trying to prove you were "right," because in this case, it will help the "right."
Kos, you have the power to turn the Kos community on, and if you do, it could change the balance of the PA race. You, singlehandedly, could play an enormous role in influencing this race. Your comment is already doing that, by questioning the poll results. You could have said something like, "this is interesting, maybe we here on Kos should be taking a second look at the chances of a progressive taking the primary. Can we make a difference?" Pennacchio has reported raising $65,000 almost entirely through grassroots small contributions, with no PAC money. The Sandals campaign has borrowed $200,000 (I don't know the source of the loan.) I imagine a strong Kos push could raise at least $30,000, maybe even $200,000 in a week or two.
Now, regarding your comments on the polling methodology, I'm no expert to comment on that. I have sent your comments on to both Zogby and, I've asked Chris Bowers to chime in, since he just ran a poll too. I might agree with you to some extent that people who agree to take these polls are "self-selected political junkies" But they are a representative array of them, and show how the energized portion of the electorate feel and will act. These are the people who will go out and work for candidates.
I've been working in the world of biofeedback most of my adult life. I believe that information is useful, that it can empower you and enable you to take more control of your life. Yes, the information must be reliable. But your first argument isn't about reliability. Your second argument is. I think that the issues information that has come out of this poll is enough to prove you wrong. The use of the information to actually help get a bill introduced to congress proves you wrong.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
