[...] Oct 1, 2010 at 9:51 am Posted by Steven in Pennsylvania 0 Comments Dan Hirschorn at PA2010 points to some more detailed data about the questionable poll on the PA-8 Congressional race commissioned by [...]

This rationalization was composed by relying upon a retrospectroscope, and it is embarrassingly flimsy…particularly when one recalls the presumed sophistication of “Pa2010.” The inherent duty to define what is obvious IN THIS SPECIFIC REGARD [the inserted description of a sponsoring entity as "third-party"] was not honored and, thus, the responsibility to maintain the readers’ TRUST was shirked…raising concern when OTHER postings have not been fact-checked.

There is an obvious contradiction when it is simultaneously recognized it was an “internal” poll–which is OBVIOUS when the entities financing it are noted–and that it still could receive the appellation of having been acquired at arm’s length from the two campaigns.

Therefore, REGARDLESS of the results/methodology, it cannot be portrayed as having been commissioned by a “Third-Party.” And there was no effort to convey the alleged “skepticism” with which it was said to have been met.

Having been given the opportunity to have acquired more information is irrelevant for, at the very least, the INITIAL report should have characterized these two entities…which most EVERYONE knows are hardly neutral.

It is said that “we’re in the business of reporting this [sic] results.” But it is assumed that a politics-oriented site is ALSO in the business of quality self-scrutiny, for the CREDIBILITY of its journalistic professionalism is now ADMITTEDLY flawed.

Therefore, the “clarification” that I repeatedly sought only compounds the error that was committed, for it appears the Editor still doesn’t “get it” for, if nothing else, the non-”junkie” may be unduly swayed by the instant-description of obviously-biased financiers as “third-party.”

Illustrative of how WRONG “Pa2010″ has been, note:

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100930115026.aspx

Here, another psuedo-journalist [Ed Schultz] treats another “Third-Party” poll [by The Nation] uncritically, as legit. The contrast with other polling notwithstanding, the key-concern IN BOTH INSTANCES is that the author be FORTHCOMING instead of simply glossing-over the OBVIOUS.

I know Dan wouldn’t want to be viewed as performing in the same league in which Ed plays, but there is NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE in how they performed in THIS INSTANCE. In Ed’s case, it is sadly to be expected when the obvious 180-degree misquote (by Grayson) is being defended. In this case, it is even-more-sadly NOT to be expected when an allegedly-close race is being handicapped.

Dan, confront the essence of your error, if for no other reason than to convey awareness that it won’t be repeated!

Prediction: Murphy by 1-2 percentage points and lower than normal voter turnout.

Outside of the political blogs and Establishment people from both parties, nobody in the 8th District is excited about this race because both candidates stink.

“Same Old, Same Old” Mike Fitzpatrick is clearly of the Arlen Specter RINO mold and because Mike has the conviction of a weather vane, expect him to support whatever position it will take for him to get elected … and don’t ask him about his past voting record, unless you want to hear about times have changed with no substantive answer. And that “Vote for me because I’m a cancer survivor” ad shows that this guy will say/do anything to get back in office. Hey Mike, don’t use cancer for political gain, I thought you were above that but I guess I was wrong.

Patrick Murphy the “Blue Dog” – that’s laughable. While Patrick is correct that Mike is a crappy candidate with a questionable voting record, what has Patlosi done other than to help Obama bankrupt the country? Why couldn’t Murphy have a single “real” town hall meeting? This Dem has been in Congress twice as long as Mike and has absolutely nothing good to show for it. Plus, he seems like a dope.

Ever notice that the main campaign signs for both these losers are pretty much the same … dark blue background with boring white letter. Unfortunately, that’s what we’re left with a choice in PA-08 … which boring blue campaign sign do you like better, because you can’t trust either of these guys.

@ No Lesser Of Two Evils:

Your characterization of Mike is erroneous.

ANY conversation with him–or exposure to his stump-speeches–would yield (to any disinterested listener) the perception of a sensitive, knowledgeable, principled leader…who does not wear pat-answers (patriotism, for example) on his sleeve.

Even his most ardent critics during the Primary Season couldn’t equate him with Arlen Specter, contrasting (for example) the ample data supporting a comparable characterization of Mike Castle.

He has addressed the handful of concerns with his voting record and, in particular, the fact that bills may be opposed/supported for reasons that are mutually exclusive of stated-biases conveyed in a simplified-portrayal by an obvious-ideologue.

Recall, for example, the fact that ~600 people paid $60 to help celebrate St. Patrick’s Day with him…long before the campaign rhetoric heated-up.

Mike has a dedicated core of supporters which has exploded…as Patrick has continued to hide from Town Halls; indeed, his exposure in MontCo and Philly has also been well-received.

EVERYONE should plan to listen to the Shir Ami Debate on Sunday @ 1 p.m. [The Eagles start @ 4] because the clarity of his viewpoints will serve as a sharp contrast with the defensiveness that Patrick has been forced to exhibit when encumbered by the Obama-Albatross.

Patrick depends on a $750K last-week mega-media network-TV ad-blitz; Mike relies upon the voters’ intelligence.

Dr. —

Your skepticism of this poll is only influenced by your political bias. I’ll admit I’m a liberal, so I’m more predisposed to trust SEIU at face value. However, Dan’s done his homework here and this poll passes the smell test. And frankly, I’m typically critical of Dan — he probably realizes this — but I’m going to give credit where credit is due.

PA2010 has given you and BucksRight more credit than you deserve, and did a healthy amount of digging into the internals on this poll, and reported his findings honestly.

Now, let me ask you this question. If the Chamber of Commerce polled on behalf of Fitzpatrick, and Dan called it a ‘third-party poll’, would you object? In the English language, the phrase third party means not of the first two parties. In this case, that would be the Democrats and the Republicans, broadly. SEIU and VoteVets are both progressive organizations, to be sure, and both are supporting Murphy. However, they are still a third-party group. By definition. There’s no other way to describe it!

Yo Doc Sklaroff, I’m noticing a pattern here.

Whenever PA2010 does stuff favorable to Democrats, you raise hell. But whenever PA2010 does stuff favorable to Republicans, you’re stone cold silent.

Maybe you’re just a mindless ideologue with absolutely no credibility.

Just maybe.

@ Transplant: I would object if ANY potentially-slanted entity did a poll IF it were dubbed a “third-party”…without waiting to read the poll (i.e., regardless of whether I later had no problem with its methodology…although BucksRight found the SEIU/VV effort to be a push-poll).

@ Observation: I focus on Fitzpatrick/Toomey; if there is anything you think they have done wrong (or, contrariwise, if there is anything you think Murphy/Sestak have done correctly) and I failed to comment, then

(1)–I had nothing to add to what had already been composed, or

(2)–I disagreed with your assessment.

@ Both of you:

Without attempting to emulate the owner* of “Monkey Business,” please submit your best-shots at either of these candidates, and I will reply accordingly.

And if you can’t, then YOUR electrical-silence will be deafening!

[* = Colorado Senator Gary Hart]

go to hell skarloff. Dan does a good job with this website. no one reads your useless banter.

I might add that, in contrast with both of you, I do not write anonymously.

Also, I have been publicly critical of Christine O’Donnell.

http://www.delawaretomorrow.com/tossing-your-money-down-the-christine-odonnell-money-pit/

Dan knows I’m jealously guarding my credibility.

So, puhleeze, let’s deal with the FACTS!

@ TB

No, I won’t oblige you.

Dan does a “good” job, but even he would readily admit that he can always improve upon it.

So, the three of you, now that we have dealt with ancillary matters and rationalizations, do you concur that this headline was faulty?

And, Dan, can you now “cut your losses” and agree that you failed to convey you had chosen it “with considerable skepticism”…and concur that the headline was simply faulty?

@ TB

Are you a self-classified “no one” who reads my blogging?

Jus’ wundrin’….

I know which candidate we are voting for – Mike Fitzpatrick speaks from the heart, he doesn’t need to have “goon” squads as Murphy has in his corner – along with the unions. Why does he hide in his foxhole instead of meeting and/or talking to his constituents? I have written to him many times, no response…My husband has written to him, gone to his DC offices but he would not speak to them. Yes, he was there. Let’s send a decent man to Washington to really stir the pot!!
Mike knows that his supporters are going to hold
him accountable for his time serving in the 8th
Congressional District…..now all that Murphy is bbesides being the “lapdog” for Pelosi and at the \beck and call of the Appropriations Committee and
President Obama. Remember the late John Murtha
was Murphy’s mentor. Why would such a war
veteran as Murphy allow Murtha to ditz the veterans as he did. I could go on and on.

Yes, the troll-like Sklaroff has man-love for FitzFlop, has zero credibility, and does not even live in FitzFlop’s district.

FitzFlop simply does not seem that smart to me. Bucks GOP loves to say Murphy is a dullard but I think Murphy is a lot smarter than Mike. What law school did Mike go to? Nuff said.

FitzFlop is a liar and a fraud. No leadership ability. No new ideas. He is a career politician with no ideals or stable beliefs other than to get back into office.

I’ll take a guy with predictable beliefs (even if I do not agree with all of them) over a guy who could teach John Kerry how to flip-flop.

Frustated:

“Troll-like”, “man-love”?

Take it easy donkey-boy.

Fitz is in, Murphy is out.

Maybe you can have a pity party with the rest of the dems and the sanctimonious, “purist”, fake “grass roots” trogologytes on November 3.You know, I’m talking about the shlemiels who got their fewings hurt on primary day, and can’t get over it. (or maybe your one of them….)

Wise up sap.

To return to the topic at-issue [notwithstanding interim comments that failed to respond to specifics that had refuted such assertions]:

“So, the three of you, now that we have dealt with ancillary matters and rationalizations, do you concur that this headline was faulty?

“And, Dan, can you now “cut your losses” and agree that you failed to convey you had chosen it “with considerable skepticism”…and concur that the headline was simply faulty?”

Dan, you may also wish to “police” such entries as “…the troll-like Sklaroff has man-love for FitzFlop.”