Missouri\u2019s incumbent U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill faces a challenge in November from Republican Josh Hawley, and things are heating up, as I learned today in a phone call from a polling company. A nice young man [clearly needing a megadose of Dayquil], who identified himself as representing a polling outfit known as SSI Research<\/a>, asked the questions. Curious, as always, I stayed on the phone, even though I had to say \u201cHello\u201d three times before he picked up [a dead giveaway that it\u2019s a boiler room call]. Still, I persisted. And I\u2019m glad I did, because this \u201cpoll\u201d was clearly about message-testing\u2014and the messages they\u2019re contemplating are nasty.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s my walk-through of the survey, as accurately as I can recount it, based on the fast and furious notes I was trying to take. Don\u2019t take the quotes literally, they\u2019re transcribed as best as I could get them in the moment. [I had him repeat several of the questions so I could get them down.] The questions are in bold. My responses are in brackets, in case you care.<\/p>\n

It started with the typical, \u201cHow likely are you to vote?\u201d [Very likely]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cWhich of these individuals are you aware of? And do you view them favorably or unfavorably?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Donald Trump [Unfavorably. Very unfavorably]<\/em><\/p>\n

Josh Hawley [Unfavorably. Don\u2019t know quite enough to be \u201cvery unfavorable,\u201d but somewhat unfave.]<\/em><\/p>\n

Claire McCaskill [Very favorably. Well, I\u2019m a bit less enthusiastic than that, but I\u2019m not telling that to a Republican pollster.]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cIn the U.S. Senate race, are you set on voting for Claire McCaskill, or is there still room for you to change your mind?\u201d \u00a0<\/strong>[Definitely voting for Claire. Not changing my mind.]<\/em><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s where it got good. This is obviously the message-testing portion of the program. I\u2019m sending this post to Claire McCaskill\u2019s campaign, so in case they haven\u2019t seen it yet, they can fact check it and be ready to counter the bullshit.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow I\u2019m going to read you a list of statements about Claire McCaskill. Please rate them on a 100-point scale, with 100 meaning that this statement makes you very angry, upset or concerned. You can use any number from 0 to 100.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cClaire McCaskill voted for an energy bill that would kill 76,000 jobs in Missouri.\u201d \u00a0<\/em><\/strong>[I ranked that 0. Hope I did that right. I\u2019m trying to send the message that I support what Claire does. I would have to give that statement itself a 100, because it makes me angry when polls use push questions, exaggerate, and distort the facts.]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cClaire McCaskill\u2019s husband\u2019s company invested in low-income housing that has received 100 million dollars in government funding. Receiving these taxpayer-funded handouts didn\u2019t prevent the company from displacing thousands of disabled veterans.\u201d \u00a0<\/em><\/strong>[I ranked that one a 0, too. Again, it\u2019s a 100 for negative messaging. Fact-check, please.] <\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cClaire McCaskill voted against tax relief for middle-class Missourians, while personally taking advantage of complicated tax schemes to avoid paying her fair share of taxes.\u201d \u00a0<\/em><\/strong>[0, for the same reasons as above.]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cClaire MCaskill has failed as a champion of veterans. She missed 50 percent of votes in the Senate Armed Services Committee.\u201d <\/em><\/strong>[0]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cClaire McCaskill is out of touch with her Missouri constituents. She billed the government for use of private jets, and she said that \u2018normal people\u2019 can afford private jets.\u2019 <\/em><\/strong>[0.]<\/em><\/p>\n

Was my rating strategy correct? Was the rating system confusing? Did I overthink it and outgame myself? Maybe someone can help me figure that out. Whatever the case, Claire needs to prepare for some negative messaging\u2014assuming, of course, that this was a Hawley-sponsored poll.<\/p>\n

In the final portion of the survey, my sniffly pollster reads me a series of statements, to which I am asked to respond on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 meaning I completely agree, and 1 meaning I do not at all agree. Here it is:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe should prevent sanctuary cities from protecting illegal immigrants and defying immigration authorities.\u201d \u00a0<\/strong>[1. I actually understand this rating scale.]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cCongress should include funding for more immigration enforcement and building a wall along the Mexico border.\u201d \u00a0<\/strong>[1. Nope.]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cWe should find a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers\u2014immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents.\u201d \u00a0<\/strong>[Trick question, to see if I\u2019m paying attention? I\u2019m paying attention: 9.]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe United States should decrease immigration and prevent refugees from entering the country.\u201d <\/strong>[Give me your tired, your poor\u2026 1]<\/em><\/p>\n

Mr. Sniffles told me that, had I answered that I was probably going to vote for Josh Hawley, I would have gotten a list of statements about him instead. In a way, I wish I had gone for Hawley, just to see what the questions would be. Silly me. I was honest.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Missouri\u2019s incumbent U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill faces a challenge in November from Republican Josh Hawley, and things are heating up, as I learned today<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":38437,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2953,119,3204,1675,3206],"tags":[2829,3205],"yoast_head":"\n