CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

Push Polls With Debunked Claims Used To Attack Greenberg

by | Oct 24, 2014 4:10pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Congress, 5th CD, Election 2014, Litchfield

Mark Greenberg is crying foul over tactics being used by a variety of Democratic organizations working to support the re-election of 5th District U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty.

The Litchfield Republican, challenging Esty’s bid for a second term, says he has been the victim of “push polls” — telephone calls that spread negative attacks about a candidate under the guise of being a legitimate research survey.

Esty’s campaign has emphatically denied involvement in or knowledge of push polls, but a common narrative has emerged in the way that Esty’s campaign, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the House Majority PAC, and the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee have attacked Greenberg.

Material used in the “push polls” Greenberg cites mirrors information included in a 99-page “opposition research book” prepared by the DCCC. Some of it has also been used in a voter guide and TV ads aired by the House Majority PAC, the DCCC, and the Esty campaign itself, including a persistent line of attack on Social Security that the Hartford Courant has labeled “false.”

According to the Hartford Courant’s Jon Lender, some of the information in that research book was based on the wrong Mark Greenberg and real estate companies with similar names but not connected to the candidate.

One of the push polls that has attacked Greenberg talks about a child being affected by lead paint in one of his buildings. But it was based on faulty DCCC research and was related to a landlord with no connection to Greenberg.

Esty’s campaign and the House Majority PAC both denied involvement in “push polls” in the 5th District. Marc Brumer, a spokesman for the DCCC, would not comment on the organization’s polling operations, and also refused to comment on Lender’s reporting.

“We certainly poll, which is what we use to inform what spending we do in various races and what messages work best,” said Matt Thornton, a House Majority PAC spokesman. “But push polling is not something we spend money on.”

Polling experts say that “message testing” typically includes both pro and con statements about multiple candidates, whereas a “push poll” focuses on one candidate and includes information that’s “uniformly negative.”

Greenberg himself was accused of using push polling to attack former state Sen. Sam Caligiuri in a previous unsuccessful Republican primary bid for the 5th District in 2010.

In denying involvement, Esty and her campaign spokeswoman, Laura Maloney, have criticized push polls as a dirty tactic that is “ineffective” and a “waste of money.”

Push polls are actually against the law in New Hampshire, where Mountain West Research, the firm Greenberg Campaign Manager Bill Evans says is behind some of the push polling used in the 5th District, has been subject to fines.

While unaware of the specific controversy over push polling in the 5th District, Gary Rose, chairman of the political science department at Sacred Heart University, said that it’s hard to believe such tactics could be used by surrogates without a candidate’s knowledge.

“If in fact it’s taking place . . . the candidate has to know about it,” he said. “Any time a push poll is done, it’s coming right out of the headquarters, it’s got to be. And if it’s not coming from headquarters, it’s coming from a group closely associated and coordinating with the campaign . . . you can’t tell me the candidates aren’t being somewhat consulted.”

It would be illegal for a candidate to “coordinate” with independent groups spending money on a congressional race, so campaigns are typically careful to keep PACs supporting them at arms’ length.

Rose called it a “fraudulent law” and said that the shuttling back and forth of key operatives between campaigns and independent groups makes it hard to believe that’s really happening.

For example, Julie Sweet served as campaign manager for Esty’s bid for Congress two years ago and then as her congressional office chief of staff until January of this year. She now works for the DCCC, which prepared the opposition research book on Greenberg and has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars attacking him and supporting Esty’s candidacy.

Esty’s campaign rejects this assessment.

“Contrary to Mark Greenberg’s false allegations and other people’s opinions, we had nothing to do with this,” Maloney said. “Our campaign follows all election laws and maintains high internal standards. Mark Greenberg has been running for Congress for six years. He knows full well we have nothing to do with that book, and our campaign would never use push polls and condemns anyone who does. This is just another desperate attempt by Mark Greenberg to distract from his extreme views and questionable business practices.”

Early in this year’s campaign, Esty turned down a Greenberg proposal that would have had both candidates rejecting involvement by outside groups. It was similar to a pledge that Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren abided by in a race for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts two years ago.

Esty said that she couldn’t agree to that when Greenberg has a personal net worth in the tens of millions of dollars and the ability to “self-fund” his campaign. With two weeks left before the election, however, Esty had outspent Greenberg by more than 2 to 1, not including the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on her behalf by the DCCC, House Majority PAC, and the Connecticut state Democratic Party.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(6) Archived Comments

posted by: Joebigjoe | October 25, 2014  7:39pm

Democrats are Socialists and Communists. The Republicans do this stuff too but not as bad as the Dems.

Look at what they did at the federal level with the FEC. If you cant beat them in the arena of ideas you regulate them and throw big government at them.

“As the media prepared to vacate newsrooms for the weekend, Democrats snuck in a last minute proposal that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) be allowed to heavily regulate political content on internet sites such as Youtube, blogs, and the Drudge Report. “

Recently Christine said that she thinks comments on her site are 10-1 Republican. I guess what’s next is that you can’t have that. We have to make things equal so lets shut down sites like this is what I guarantee some Dems have considered.

posted by: gutbomb86 | October 27, 2014  10:50am


Oh yes, Joe, the Democratic Party certainly feels the need to shut down a news website because of a group of 10 or so ridiculous anonymous commenters that try to label them as both socialists and communists. Right.

You really need to shut off the propaganda machine and get informed. Whenever I read your comments I am embarrassed for conservatives, of whom I know many and none of them are as unrealistic or uninformed as the most of the so-called conservatives who comment here.

Hmmm let’s see how things are going under a Democrat president, oxymoronically labeled a socialists communist:

-63 straight months of economic expansion (Forbes)

-54 straight months of private sector job creation, the “longest period of job creation since the Department of Labor has been keeping statistics.” (Washington Post)

-Unemployment has dropped from 10.1% in October of 2009 to 5.9% and projected to reach 5.4% by summer of 2015. (politicsusa)

-“Since early 2009 ... the Dow Jones Industrial averages reached an all-time high of 17,098 in August, 2014.” (macrotrends)

-Income taxes are lower now than just about any time in the previous 50 years for 95% of Americans. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

-US “Dependence on foreign oil has shrunk due to record domestic oil production and improved fuel efficiency standards.” (IndexMundi, an oil data site)

-Federal budget deficit has been reduced by two-thirds since 2009. (usgovernmentspending.com)

Joe, I’m afraid you need to wake up and smell the coffee and the prosperity. With so much data at your fingertips it really makes us all wonder why people like yourself listen to so much negativity and opt to regurgitate it online, albeit anonymously, but still. It’s ridiculous.

posted by: Joebigjoe | October 27, 2014  11:01am

Gutbomb thank you so much. How could I have been so wrong? I’m switching sides. Look forward to seeing you at the Stalin Mao annual picnic.

posted by: whatsprogressiveaboutprogressives? | October 27, 2014  11:18am

Boy gutbomd,we’re going to have to take turns smelling your coffee cause I’m in with BigJoe(Telly Savalas Kelly’s Heroes character). I suppose the irs crackdown on conservative groups is okay right and that it’s just another FACTS news propaganda story.You cite the dependence on foreign oil decreasing , but yet we are paying more now for gas and all other utilites for that matter, than ever before. Do I need to attach a copy of my recent fill up or natural gas bill to satisfy you? 11 years ago, the national avg. for a gallon of gas was $1.74. http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/23/news/economy/gas_aaa/
So enjoy your facts while your vaporlocking on that ruben in your avitar…
My apologies to the author for getting off topic.

posted by: gutbomb86 | October 27, 2014  12:19pm


-Whats ... can’t you step back for a moment from the earth-shattering IRS scandal (in which just as many if not more lefty groups were also targeted) and see the big picture?

This president, which greenberg would definitely oppose - is overseeing the longest period of job and economic growth in our lifetime. Which sucks for you, apparently.

posted by: Greg | October 28, 2014  12:54pm

An economny of “the longest period of job and economic growth in our lifetime” does not need zero interest rate policy and a trillions of QE in order to sustain itself. 

Obama did such a good job growing the economy?  OK, tell Yellen to raise interest rates and wind down the Fed’s balance sheet. 

Oh wait…the economy isn’t so strong after all.  Ya know, labor force participation back into the 1970s, inequality at an all time high, underemployment still high…all that.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages