Terrence Wall’s “scientific” polling exposed

A few weeks ago I wrote about the fundraising appeal Terrence Wall made to supporters of his U.S. Senate, and I noted the “scientific poll” Wall cited as proof of the supposed vulnerability of incumbent Senator Russ Feingold. Here’s what T. Wall had to say about his “scientific poll” (emphasis mine):

P.S. Wisconsin voters want to get our country back on track. A recently completed scientific poll found that if the election were held today, voters would elect a “successful Wisconsin businessperson” over an 18-year incumbent by a 62 to 38 percent margin. That’s good news for us, and great news for this country. Please join us and consider making your contribution today.

At the time I wrote about T. Wall’s “scientific poll,” I noted how curious it was that there wasn’t any mention of which reputable polling firm conducted the “scientific poll” or the size of the poll’s sample, or any other important points that could lend some credibility to the poll’s accuracy, beyond T. Wall’s personal assurances that it was a “scientific” poll. The fact that Wall’s poll showed voters would elect a random and nameless “successful Wisconsin businessperson” over a unspecified “18-year incumbent” by a margin of 62 to 38 percent, I can’t help but think T. Wall couldn’t quite come up with a poll that showed Terrence Wall beating Russ Feingold in 2010. In fact, I know T. Wall couldn’t come up with a poll that showed Terrence Wall beating Russ Feingold in 2010, which isn’t surprising, considering Terrence Wall was a two-time (2001 & 2009) loser for a spot on his village’s board of trustees.

Now I’m not sure what kind of mad scientists Wall has working for him in his campaign polling laboratory, because an actual scientific poll released recently paints a different story of Wisconsin’s 2010 U.S. Senate race. The poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling and released on November 24, showed Sen. Feingold beating Terrence Wall by 14%. The same poll showed Terrence Wall’s favorability at an astoundingly low 2%, while his unfavorables are already at 13% – with 85% not knowing who the heck Terrence Wall actually is. It’s important to note that Wall’s primary challenger, Dave “Blaze Orange gimmick” Westlake, has the same favorability rating as Wall, and actually a lower unfavorable rating. So it looks likes Wall’s claim that he’d beat Sen. Feingold with 62% of the vote is just a few (or twenty) percentage points off from reality.

I guess we’ll wait and see what Wall’s mad scientists will cook up for the next time Terrence Wall feels like making more ridiculous claims in future interviews.


Related Articles

20 thoughts on “Terrence Wall’s “scientific” polling exposed

  1. It’s stunning the disrespect Wall and his ilk have for voters. They seriously think that the public will just sop up whatever slop they shovel out. They are setting the bar extraordinarily low and still keep tripping over it.

    Saturday of Thanksgiving, Watertown, Mr. Westlake’s “hometown”, held its annual Holiday Parade of Lights. There was not a single swatch of blaze orange on any of the floats. To you or me, appearing in your hometown parade might seem a no brainer. I guess Mr. Westlake was doing the other kind of hunting instead.

    1. Rich, you’re absolutely right; Terrence Wall seems to be betting on the fact that voters are so uninformed that they’ll just believe whatever his campaign generates, regardless of whether it’s actually true or not.

      As for the absence of the “Blaze Orange Army” from the Watertown Holiday Parade of Lights, that certainly seems kind of odd, given the fact that Dave Westlake is the home town candidate.

  2. To support Feingold is to support gun control; the out-of-control,not-so-stimulating massive spending of taxpayer $ during a recession; enforced unconstitutional bailouts; unprecedented future taxation; gov’t takeovers of entire INDUSTRIES such as healthcare,energy, education; legislation that encourages/simplifies voting fraud; senators that knowingly vote against the majority of their constituency, while facades-of-otherwise, via “listening sessions”, are scheduled/promoted after-the-fact but poorly publicized in as little as 12 hours in advance.

    Congressional voting records can’t be disputed and collectively they tell an encumbent’s story. Actions or lack thereof that align with the story are very telling, as well.

    1. Lori, Sen. Feingold’s position on a number of issues have been well-known since he was first elected to the Senate, yet he continues to win reelection. Perhaps he’s not as out of touch with Wisconsin’s voters as you and the vocal minority you represent would like to think.

  3. Lori,
    Facts to back up your claims? Take your time, I got all day.

    Alternatives? Two known Repubs, one with a dubious grasp of tax law, and the other who fancies bright orange. Dems? None on the radar.

    You can cherry pick his record all you want, but of the 3 interested parties, only Feingold has actually a record that, on balance, shows that he does what he campaigns for.

    1. Rich, I’m betting Lori won’t provide facts to back up her claims; she strikes me as one of those “hit and run” type of commenters.

  4. Oh, and another thing. A terrorist can take a plane down every month and the death toll would not come within an order of magnitude of the number of people killed by guns every year. Just sayin’.

    1. Are you having trouble interpreting the fact that he’s voted exactly how he said he would when he ran for the Senate in 2004?

  5. Zack W, If you’re right and Feingold’s job security, since 1993, stems from his understanding that his constituency overwhelming shares his ultra-liberal position, then yes, he is a shoe in for the seat in 2010.

  6. Rich, there is no cherry picking of Senator Feingold’s voting record going on here.
    It’s not necessary.

    I think we both know Westlake’s commitment to wearing blaze orange represents his support of our 2nd ammendment right to bear arms, which is in opposition to Feingold’s support of gun control.

    Curious, why the need to qualify your statement with “on balance” when stating Feingold does what he campaigns for?

    1. Dave Westlake wearing blaze orange is a gimmick; and it’s an ironic gimmick, given the fact that Westlake’s first campaign website stated he wouldn’t resort to gimmicks. As for Sen. Feingold’s record on gun control, if you did any research, you’d know his record on gun control isn’t as cut and dry as you’d think. In fact, Sen. Feingold supported the Supreme Court’s decision in DC v. Heller, signing an amicus brief along with noted liberal senators such as Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mitch McConnel (R-KY), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), among others.

      If you’re going to come here with nothing more than tea party talking points, you’re going to have a hard time.

    2. Of course there’s no cherry picking because you have yet to support your case with one scintilla of factual evidence. You brought the argument, not me. The burden of proof is on you. I am under no obligation to prove anything.

      So Westlake wants to “protect” gun rights. Why the paranoia? Doesn’t he already have the Constitution on his side? Is gun control the central issue in America today? Whatever happened to all that talk about Acorn coming to take our guns? Or whatever that was.

      I’m done here. Moving on.

  7. Rich, certainly someone that has all day to defend Senator Feingold would be able to prove the words of a hit and run commentator as baseless.

  8. Zach, by nuanced do you mean inconsistent position on gun control? It is commonly known that Feingold’s voting record on gun control is sporatic, making it all but clear. Until proven otherwise, I suspect Feingold’s “nuances”, as you call them, are his way of appeasing his overwhelming number of avid gun hunting constituents drawing away their attention from his true intention of slowly but surely taking our right to bear arms away once and for all. I just call them as I see them.

    1. Lori, it’s not “nuanced;” it’s nuanced, without the quotation marks. I know that many conservatives are fond of breaking down issues into their most basic forms, but contrary to what you seem to believe, most issues aren’t a simple matter of “either/or” or “black and white.” There’s a lot of gray area (nuance) to be found on most issues, if you’re willing to look. It’s clear you’d rather just attack Sen. Feingold than take an honest look at his record, and that’s fine.

      On an unrelated note, how’s the teabagging going?

    2. The problem when one sees the world as only black and white on issues means you deprive oneself of all the shades of gray. To arbitrarily try to pigeonhole into a category is not a good or efficient way to go through life.

Comments are closed.