Almost Friday Kickin' It Old School Edition

by Benjamin J. Kirby

Between the fantastic images we've been seeing from Mo Eppley at both the Republican Convention in Tampa as well as the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, the incredibly popular guest posts from Johnny Bardine and Kevin King, and the near-daily Convention-special Into the Echo Chamber back-and-forths between me and Matt, things have been a little crazy around here.  You're certainly getting more content on a regular basis than I ever provided before.  So that's something.

Anyway, these last few weeks have been an awful lot of fun.  I appreciate you coming by and reading and being a part of it all.  Thanks.

# # # #

President Clinton said it best last night: "Democracy doesn't have to be a bloodsport."  

But, as I think he has aptly demonstrated throughout his career, that doesn't mean you don't call out a lie when you hear one.  That doesn't mean you don't try to right an injustice.  It doesn't mean you don't stand up and speak to what is right, honest, and fair.  

What I've seen in the last couple of days regarding Keith Fitzgerald simply cannot stand unchallenged.

On Wednesday, Peter over at SaintPetersblog had this headline: "New independent poll shows Vern Buchanan up twenty points over Keith Fitzgerald"

Devastating, right?  Well, not really.  For a couple of reasons.  

One, the reputation of the polling firm which conducted the survey is questionable at best.  Don't take my word for it -- here are some choice words about the organization conducting the polling, St. Pete Polls:

In July, I questioned some of St. Pete Polls’ findings from a survey of pretty much every race on the primary ballot in Pinellas Its numbers ran counter to not only my own internal polling but to that of other consultants working those races.

My instincts also told me that some of SPP’s findings were waaayyy off, regardless of what its results showed.

...

Unfortunately, St. Pete Polls made a glaring, almost unforgivable error by polling a GOP primary in Senate District 8 which simply did not exist. The candidate St. Pete Polls forecast winning that election wasn’t even on the ballot. I realize St. Pete Polls is still working out the kinks in its operation, but I can’t imagine Mason-Dixon or Quinnipiac committing such a grievous error.

...

A second criticism I offered of St. Pete Polls was concerning its findings in Congressional District 13, writing, “Only 48.6% of voters are decided on U.S. Rep. Bill Young? That’s highly suspicious.” It turns out my suspicions were well-founded as Young ended up with nearly 70% of the vote.

...

The rest of my criticisms, save one, of St. Pete Polls findings also turned out to be accurate:

• I wondered why Ed Hooper was “only” up twenty-three points over Chris Sheppard in House District 67; Hooper won by almost forty points;
• I did not believe Ken Welch was “only” up seven points over Maria Scruggs; Welch won by thirty-seven;
• I questioned if Bill Burgess was really leading Andy Steingold by two-to-one; actually that’s by how much Burgess beat Steingold — St. Pete Polls nailed this.
• Finally, I did not believe that Shelly Ladd-Gilbert was leading the race for the District 1 seat on the Pinellas School Board; a well-meaning candidate Ladd-Gilbert finished a distant third.

If the difference in the new District 13 race is borne out in the new District 16 race, then Keith and Vern are tied.  Read the quoted material above again and you tell me if you trust the work of St. Pete Polls.

By the way, those comments are from Peter Schorsch, from Saint Petersblog post just last month.

The second reason this is hardly news is that advertising in the Fitzgerald versus Buchanan race hasn't really gotten fired up yet.

Well.  It apparently has for one side.  More on that in a minute.  

The point is, most folks already know Vern Buchanan (for better or for worse).  Keith has two months to continue to build a brand -- and if the Tampa Bay Times and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune are to be believed, it's working and the gap is closing.

A sense of panic at that closing gap may explain why Vern continues to employ elaborate -- and despicable -- methods to smear Keith Fitzgerald, as good and honest a guy as you could hope to have represent the people of the new 16th Congressional District.  

Here's another "devastating" Saint Petersblog headline: 76% of New College students bash absentee professor/congressional candidate Keith Fitzgerald

I started looking at some of the comments (in a locked Google Doc, many of which looked suspiciously repeated), and then something caught my eye.  It was this:

Notice anything funny?  

That's right.  

Nothing has changed since this time last month.

Vern is still paying Peter for advertising while simultaneously using his widely-read blog as a platform to conduct ridiculous character assassinations and cheap smear campaigns against his political opponents.

It is shameful.

And my guess is it won't work.  Vern Buchanan can try to change the subject from his support of the deplorable HR 3.  He can try to run away from his support of the Medicare-devastating Ryan Budget.  He can try to bury his legal and ethical troubles behind a cloud of lies and deceit.  

Don't let him do it. 

Tell your friends and neighbors.  Help spread the word.

Let's get an honest, decent and good man elected to Congress in Florida's 16th CD.

Go Fitz Go.

# # # #

Speaking of liars, turns out the GOP produced a snarky anti-Obama ad...

...in which a frustrated former Obama supporter expresses her disappointment with the president. The only problem: The woman in the video is actually an RNC staffer.

Yeah, not only an RNC staff, but a former employee of none other than our hospital grifter Governor (and fellow liar!) Rick Scott.

Fabulous.

Man, these guys can't even lie well.

# # # #

And if they're not lying, they're just plain offensive.

# # # #

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog has some interesting graphics off to the right, there.  The blue line is, ever so slightly, trending up, the red line -- Romney -- ever so slightly down.

He's the first to tell you not to make a single thing of it yet.  And I'm quite sure that, in addition to everything he says, a lot of it has to do with the Democrats largely controlling the spotlight this week.

Still.  It's a lot of fun to watch.

# # # #

A quick word about the Democratic Convention platform "scandal," mostly as it related to inserting the word "God".  Here's a key phrase from that HuffingtonPost article:

The language in the platform – a political document – does not affect actual U.S. policy toward Israel. The administration has long said that determining Jerusalem's status is an issue that should be decided in peace talks by Israelis and Palestinians.

Still.

Conventions -- for all that they are, which is really just a show -- are about uniting behind a candidate and a platform.  It is a bit deflating to read headlines which essentially say Democrats caved to Republican criticism about not having "God" in the platform to begin with.  The Republicans will desperately make hay of this until November, I guess.

In the end, as Mustang Bobby noted, it is worth pointing out that there is no mention of God in the United States Constitution, either.  

Let's keep some perspective, people.

# # # # 

It's almost Friday.

Comments

[Peter Schorsch]

Ben --

I think it's a disservice to your readers to cherry-pick my analysis of St. Pete Polls.

You include all of the negative conclusions I arrived at, but you leave out the most important conclusion, which was:

St. Pete Polls was right about the big-ticket items, such as in the races for Pinellas Sheriff and State Senate, but it had problems in some of the down-ballot races. I genuinely don't know why that would be.

Still, it's fair to conclude that St. Pete Polls can be trusted. Its results in the most important races outweigh its askew numbers in down-ballot campaigns. Moreover, the residents and voters involved in these races should be grateful for St. Pete Polls' contribution to the public debate.

With a little fine-tuning, St. Pete Polls could be a real force in the years to come.

[Benjamin J. Kirby]

Interesting, because I think it's a disservice to *your* readers -- and honest people running for office - when you post cherry-picked comments from a sixteen-year period and title it such that it appears as though 76% of all New College students disapprove of one professor.

I also think it's a gross disservice that you accept advertising dollars from a candidate and simultaneously run hit pieces on his opponent.

To your point on St. Pete Polls, Peter, I am going to suggest you explain yourself further. Are you seriously suggesting that St. Pete Polls can be trusted simply because they were "right about the big-ticket items"? You said in your comment above that they "had problems in some of the down-ballot races," and you "genuinely don't know why that would be."

Pollster have a job to do, and as you well know, consistency is a big part of it. Maybe the biggest part. If we can at least agree on that, then I'm not sure why it is "fair to conclude that St. Pete Polls can be trusted."

You may know them better than I do. It may be that a bit of work and fine tuning, to use your phrase, would make them a viable contender. I'd welcome that, as I know you would.

I can't cherry-pick your commentary about the analysis of St. Pete Polls?

Okay, fine. I can't cherry-pick.

But Peter... neither can you.

[Peter Schorsch]

I did explain myself further.

That's what my post was my post.

I looked at all of their polling and matched it up with other polling done in the area -- both internal and external and determined that St. Pete Polls deserves to be trusted.

I believe you left this part out because it undermined your argument that Fitzgerald is closer than we think.

As for "accepting" advertising dollars and simultaneously running hit pieces, that is almost a libelous statement. You infer there is some sort of connection there, when there is not. I've reported both bad and good about this race, both before and after Buchanan's campaign began advertising on SaintPetersBlog.com.

There is obviously SOME issue with Fitzgerald's role at New College, otherwise I would not be the only one reporting about it. I mean, a Board Member at New College is very upset with Fitzgerald's dual roles. That, in and of itself, is enough to warrant further coverage.

That I break these stories first is because I have better connected sources involved in that race.

But for you to attempt to connect some quid pro quo between advertising and reporting is a slanderous accusation that I just can't abide.

No one is harder on those local politicians who advertise on my site than me. Just look at what I wrote about Will Weatherford this week.