RECENT  POSTS:  » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win.  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

06/20/2011

ADF's unreleased polling methodology: If you engage with this post, you're disqualified

by Jeremy Hooper

In all press releases pertaining to the "poll" they conducted with GOP research firm Public Opinion strategies, the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund has neglected to include any data or methodology. Fortunately, we were able to find an unreleased methodology memo tucked away on ADF's site -- one that, unexpectedly, speaks directly to our interests here on this site and to the blogosphere at large:

ADFMethodologyMemo

Okay, so we all know the whole thing is skewed. ADF is one of the most anti-equality groups in the nation. Public Opinion Strategies is a 100% conservative firm. Gene Ulm is a 25 year GOP strategist, working on behalf of anti-LGBT-rights electeds like Saxby Chambliss and David Vitter. These folks have a way of conveniently obtaining the sample they need. There is no way for any credible outlet to accept this data without mentioning the layers of obvious that surround its creation.

But what really struck us is question C on page 2: "Do you write your own blog or frequently comment on blogs regarding political issues?" with an affirmative response leading to call termination. What? Why?! Bloggers and blog readers are among the most informed on political issues. Why would being aware and engaged ever be a disqualifier? Why would every G-A-Y reader be shut out from a debate we so closely follow?

The obvious answer: We are dealing with an opposition movement that benefits as much from fog as we do from clarity. So shutting out anyone who so much as comments on blogs only helps to get to an older, less engaged audience that is willing to affirm statements about "protecting traditional marriage" and "stopping the decline in moral values." Shutting out people who are familiar with the usual canards equals more willingness accept the same.

Typical.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails