Is Stefanowski’s survey ‘perfect’?
Since his defeat four years ago, Stefanowski has been methodical. By continuing to act as the presumptive candidate, he cleared the field for the spring and summer stretches of campaign season. That means he can play to unaffiliated voters rather than to the Republican base he would need to fend off rivals in a primary.
I love a good poll. Something like “What’s your favorite beach in Connecticut?” “Where’s the best pizza?” “If you were a puppy, what kind of puppy would you be?” There are no wrong answers (unless you vote for Florida pizza). But I loathe a bad poll. Here’s a curiosity that popped up in recent days: “The Stefanowski Survey.” It comes from Bob Stefanowski, the once and future Republican candidate for governor of Connecticut. Yes, he still needs to file pesky paperwork and endure political conventions, but the surest thing in Connecticut right now is a rematch between Stefanowski and incumbent Gov. Ned Lamont on Nov. 8.
Here’s the first question: “How would you rate Ned Lamont as Governor?”
1) OK
2) Bad
3) Terrible
4) Horrible
It’s always a bad sign when two of four possible responses are synonyms. But there isn’t any wiggle room since the choices lack a positive response. There could have been a little range. Something like ...
1) Dandy
2) Meh
3) He’s even worse than that dunderhead Malloy
4) Can we just hold the election now?
If you still can’t see that the questionnaire is as lopsided as a UConn-St. John’s women’s basketball game, try Question No. 2. Remember, this is a real one:
“How would you rate Bob Stefanowski’s campaign?”
1) Perfect
2) Great
3) Good
4) OK
Well, that’s a little better, what with the lack of synonyms. But it still has a margin of error of roughly 100 percent.
The email inviting participation in the survey is framed by the heading, “It’s time to speak up,” and the phrase “Here at Team Stefanowski, we want your honest feedback on how Connecticut is doing.”
So I’m speaking up with some honest feedback.
“We care about your opinion, which is why we hope you’ll take our questionnaire seriously,” it continues.
I’m also guilty of taking it more seriously than is likely intended.
If it sounds like Mad Magazine-brand satire, it’s likely (hopefully) because Stefanowski and Co. have no intentions of releasing the results with the banner, “Survey says Lamont is ‘bad,’ ‘horrible’ and ‘terrible.’ ”
Since his defeat four years ago, Stefanowski has been methodical. By continuing to act as the presumptive candidate, he cleared the field for the spring and summer stretches of campaign season. That means he can play to unaffiliated voters rather than to the Republican base he would need to fend off rivals in a primary.
Which puts him in an entirely different position in terms of cash flow and public image heading into the autumn stretch.
Gayle Alberda translated for me the possible benefits of Stefanowski’s survey. She used to be a lobbyist and political strategist, notably serving as the GOP’s deputy political director for the Great Lakes Region.
“Then I turned to the dark side of academia,” she joked.
Now she teaches “Public Opinion and Polling” at Fairfield University (where Stefanowski got his undergraduate degree in accounting).
The survey is likely “for internal campaign purposes,” she explained. It can help a candidate identify donors and volunteers early in the race.
The framing of the questions — and choice of answers — can help yield desired information.
“More diverse answers could prove beneficial in identifying swing voters,” Alberda offered as an example.
We could only speculate what Stefanowski was looking for in question No. 3, which asks participants, “What issue concerns you the most?”
The choices are “rising crime, affordability, corruption, utilities and education.” Gone are Stefanowski’s tentpole issues of 2018: zero-based budgeting and a pledge to eliminate the state income tax.
That question aligned with Stefanowski’s recent jabs at Lamont about crime stats and scandals over school construction financing and the sudden departure of Melissa McCaw, who oversaw the state budget.
Stefanowski faced fire of his own Friday, when Salon released a story bearing the subhead, “Under Bob Stefanowski, UBS portfolio included companies linked to killings, forced displacement and gang rapes.”
It’s healthy for all candidates to be held accountable, and for them to push one another to higher standards. Nothing in politics is as sad as a “race” with one candidate.
I’ve never been a big fan of political polls. During a college journalism class at Fordham, we were assigned to interview people on campus about the 1984 presidential election.
Several classmates were asked to jot the first line of their stories on blackboards. All eyes went to the lede written by a friend: “Three out of four people named Mike will vote for Ronald Reagan on Election Day.”
“What do you think?” the professor asked.
Razzing ensued from classmates.
“I like it,” the teacher opined.
It was funny while challenging the reader to continue. “All I had to do was interview roommates,” my old friend reminded me Thursday.
It also mocked the notion of accurate polling.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research condemns push polling, deeming it “an insidious form of negative campaigning, disguised as a political poll.”
Team Stefanowski wore no disguises here. And let’s be clear, both sides conduct these kinds of surveys (though not all land in the in-box of a snarky columnist). Still, candidates should consider the optics of how such polling appears to the ever-growing swath of unaffiliated voters. It’s beneath the dignity of any elected office.
Stefanowski’s campaign has time to further evolve. It’s already more sophisticated than it was during his rookie run for office four years ago, but it’s still a long way from “perfect” ... or any of its synonyms.