The questions were slanted in such a way that giving an answer they didn't want made a person sound like an idiot. Many of the questions were phrased as statements that you were asked to agree or disagree with, or state if you would be more likely or less likely to vote for the person after hearing the statement. The statements were all either favorable to Nunnelee or unfavorable to Travis Childers. Some things (a minority) I knew were true, but other factors may have weighed more; most of them were things that I didn't know for sure to be true or untrue. It was never stated that these statements were true or not, just "If I told you......., would you be more likely or less likely to vote for (the person the statement was about).
I have one thing to say to Mr. Nunnelee's campaign - I had vowed not to vote for Travis Childers because of the way he let us down on health care - but after taking Nunnelee's "poll", I'm reconsidering. With this sort of dirty politics, I may be forced for vote for Childers after all, rather than abstaining, as I had promised to do.
I've been hearing claims from Nunnelee's camp that he will not run anything but a positive campaign, and accusing Childers of running a negative campaign. If this is an example of the sneaky, underhanded negativity that Nunnelee is employing, he's nothing but another lying politician who needs to be called on his dishonesty.
He's not interested in running on his own record, but only in conning people into voting against Childers and anyone else in the Democratic party that the gullible may dislike and be persuaded that Childer's supports. Childers biggest problem is that he is truly a Democrat in name only, and I can't see much difference between him and the next Republican; except now I can see the difference between him and a particular Republican named Nunnelee, and Childers is coming out looking like the better of the two.
Update: I posted about this over at "Y'all" and called it a push poll. I should have known better than to try to talk reason with anyone on that partisan attack site. Some bright bulb over there has just informed me that I'm mistaken in calling this a push poll. Actually, he wasn't that polite; what he really said was that I don't know what I'm talking about (he'd already said the same of Patsy Brumfield, so I'm feeling the good vibes).
According to Wikipedia,
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. Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. 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.
If this wasn't a push-poll, I don't know what is. Maybe he got confused because I actually dared argue with him. People who read over there regularly tend to believe they should never be contradicted because they are just always RIGHT. Sorta like God, ya know.
Here's what I said over there:
"I took Nunnalee’s “poll” and I can guarantee you it was bogus. I don’t know about Childer’s poll, because they didn’t call me. If it was like the stinking push-poll that Nunnalee was doing, it was worthless except as an excuse to run a negative campaign ad by a person. Don’t ever let Nunnalee tell you he doesn’t do negative ads."
These guys are going to make me vote for Childers yet, in spite of promising not to do it.