Well, This Certainly Speaks for Itself (Part Deux)

With all due respect to my friend, Oliver Queen, I - as a Cal Cunningham supporter - was certainly bouyed by these recent findings from our friends at Public Policy Polling. It appears that for all of the Facebook groups urging my guy to drop out, all of the anonymous Twitter attacks against him and the constant slaving over every comment I, or anyone else, posts here on BlueNC -- it appears that we do not sway voters in the droves we wish. Rather, it looks like Cal Cunningham does a much better job at that than any of us.

Trust me, that hurts me as much as it hurts anyone else on here. BlueNC does occupy a powerful, necessary space in policy discourse, debate and outreach. But, as I myself so often forget, the internet is not the voting booth, or the town hall event, or the canvass. Online outreach and messaging is definitely part of every effective campaign communication plan - I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't acknowledge that, or the hard work folks on this site and so many others do to educate folks on issues and galvanize support for the cause and/or politician they support.

Heck, I want every post I write to start a revolution or alter the opinions of every single person who reads it, but, I will leave it to my friend, Mr. Bill Murray, to put the constant handwringing, online poll voting and continuous internet spin into its proper context (it gets good about the 0:55 mark!)

I'll let Mr. Jensen himself encapsulate what he finds and thinks DOES actually matter:

Last week's results showed that Marshall has more support than Cunningham, but whether that translates into those voters caring enough about her to come back in June is something we really won't know the answer to until the results are in. The question for both Marshall and Cunningham is how many of the people who came out last week were drawn by the US Senate race and how many of them were drawn by a Sheriff/District Attorney/County Commissioner/other local race? This first poll suggests that Marshall may have drawn more of her support from that latter group, and that it won't necessarily translate to those folks being there for her again next month.

With a lot of voters undecided and the unpredictable nature of determining who will vote in runoffs it's hard to say what will happen in this race. The biggest takeaway from the poll is that Cunningham is still in it.

So, friends, at least from this one snapshot that Mr. Jensen has released, at this point and time, Cunningham voters "appear" to support him more strongly than Marshall voters do her. Does that mean it will translate to a victory in the runoff? Who knows (even Jensen admits as much)? But, as one of longest professed Cunningham for Senate supporters, on or offline, I gotta say that it looks as though his message, his vision and his continual grassroots groundswell (i.e. sending Cal, staff or volunteers to 93 of 100 NC County Conventions over 2 weekends) is starting to pay off.

But on that, I certainly speak only for myself.


Well said.

Very good points Corndogg!

annoymous attacks

You are posting this attack anonymously. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Without making too much of a fuss of it, PPP has always taken pains to present Cunningham's campaign in a positive light. Didn't PPP predict that Cunningham would get 36 or 38% in the primary? If PPP couldn't get it right in the primary, what predictive value can their work have in the runoff?

Esse quam videri.

Our final primary poll had

Our final primary poll had Marshall leading Cunningham 28-21 with 34% undecided. Those poll numbers hold up pretty well to a final outcome of 36-27. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

I don't think Jerimee was being

critical of your numbers as much as he was the "reading between the lines", Tom. Which is (by nature) more subjective than stats and also more likely to generate hard feelings.

But I would also say to Jerimee that tearing down PPP may not be the wisest move, since their most recent polling is being held up by the Marshall campaign as the undeniable proof of Elaine's superiority.

The vitriol is starting to hit new levels.

I think it would be good for everyone to calm down a bit.

No one from our campaign is arguing with Tom's numbers since, as he said himself, that runoffs are unpredictable and difficult to poll. Furthermore, the PPP poll yesterday does clearly show Elaine is in the best position to retire Burr in the fall which goes against the entire premise of Cal Cunningham's campaign.

It would be refreshing

if calls to "calm down" and reduce the vitriol didn't include some gratuitous vitriol as a footnote:

the entire premise of Cal Cunningham's campaign

Seriously, Mike. If that's you being non-vitriolic, I'd hate to see what would happen if you decided that vitriol was okay...

candid conversation

I would love it if we could just have a candid conversation without regularly calling each other out for being impolite or uncivil or whatever. I think some modest deference should be shown to the folks that administer the blog (James, scharrison, Betsy, others?), because they take responsibility for the blog, but aside from that...

We're all adults, and rarely does one commenter accuse another of being unkind without engaging in some unkindness in the very next sentence.

I think we can just assume respect is more or less shared across the board, and even if that ain't the case, why highlight it?

Modest deference

I would prefer an exaggerated act of obeisance, with either the hands or knees (or both) touching the floor, but I'll take what I can get. :)

I'll admit that I have become, for want of a better description, "overly-sensitive" to the choice of words used in many of these candidate diaries and comments. But words have meaning, and they often establish a certain "flavor" to the conversation which I find distasteful.

Now, I can either ignore the underlying assumptions and innuendo directed against Cal, like so many other people seem prepared to do, or I can call attention to them so they won't be absorbed by readers subliminally. In my mind, that's actually a compromise; I'm attacking the words of her supporters, not Elaine herself, which Evil Steve finds a more attractive prospect.

That's me being candid, Jerimee.

no expert

I'm no expert, but how is 36-27 at all close to 28-21? I'm not expecting perfection but that's not close, is it? What would be a result you wouldn't consider close?

Didn't PPP doom Lewis's campaign by predicting that he would get about 7% of the vote, when in fact he got close to triple that? How did PPP get that so wrong? Or am I mistaken?

How much predictive value do you consider your polling to have with regard to the run-off?


/streches grandly

Another attack on my character from Jerimee.

Caveat Emptor... to all the campaigns, etc. who pay for Mr. Richir.

I'll be on a much needed vacation for the next few days. You guys try to have fun without me. And remember, keep up the great work!

www.twitter.com/corndogg (anonymity free!)

-- A liberal originally from Yadkin County. Did I just blow your mind?


Unlike yourself, I am not a surrogate or spokesperson for any campaign.

I don't believe I've made any statements about your character. I don't know you. I do think that those writing under pseudonyms tend to be less accountable than those who write in their own name. Accountability is important.

Speak for yourself!

I intend to exercise my rights under Buckley v. Valeo to do everything I can to influence voters to vote for Elaine.

I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks

Jerimee seems honest about his intentions

Here is a past post from him:

Submitted by Jerimee on Tue, 04/06/2010 - 6:11pm.
No doubt that Ken or Elaine would have accepted the endorsement of the DSCC, and the ethical compromises inherent in accepting such. They would have been wrong for doing so.

Nonetheless, neither Ken nor Elaine premised the very existence of their campaigns upon permission gained from DC power brokers behind closed doors.

Only one candidate based his decision to run on external corporate sponsorship. I continue to hope that the voters aren't as easily bought and paid for.

The DSCC should not make this sort of endorsement to begin with. The blame for disuniting our party and promoting a race to the bottom lies with the DSCC, endorser of Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman.

- - - - -

He is not and from what I have seen has not endorsed any of the candidates running for senate as a democratic but this seems to look like a lean against one.

I think blog

I think blog banter/debate/discussion has every bit as much affect on voting as putting up yard signs and receiving endorsements. (minimal at best)

I'm a moderate Democrat.