I need advice on a campaign related ethical dilemma

[Teaser]

As some of you may know, I'm a stats guy irl. I do heavy duty shit with statistics.
Well, I'm now on board with the Obama campaign and am analyzing some of their internal polling.

Now before you ask I can't tell you anything about the content therein. Or else, I get sued.

So, with that in mind, do you guys think it will be possible to participate in discussions on this board *about non-Obama campaign polling* (like, say, the latest NBC poll) without tipping my hand as to what it is I know, exactly?

I'm not so sure it can be done. What says the crowd?

[TransitJohn]

1. you probably shouldn't talk about polling at all in public

especieally not on the intertubes

[warrior1]

2. I can see why you chose your name

But, to answer you question, I haven't got a clue.

[Lex]

3. What is "non-Obama polling"?

Polling info on McCain? :shrug:

[Teaser]

4. I edited it for clarity

polling by public organizations, like NBC/Gallup/etc.

[Lex]

9. Well, let's say I'm a lawyer. I couldn't discuss my client's case

here at all, but I could discuss, say, the OJ case or someone else's case.

[Teaser]

10. there's impropriety and appearance of impropriety though

.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

12. In the thorny world of ethics...

It is always better to err on the side of caution.

Just don't talk about none o' dat' stuff.

[napi21]

8. I'd guess it's any polling that's not affiliated with the Obama campaign.

I would think the OPer would be better off just reading the posts and not participating. "Appearance of" and all that, ya know.

[Barack_America]

5. Not after you've already outed yourself as having access to their data.

I don't even want to SUSPECT that I'm seeing their internal data being released to the public.

[Barack_America]

Also, as far as ethics go, "If there is doubt, don't".

That's my personal rule of thumb.

[Teaser]

7. good point. so no more poll debunking.

Ashame, I always enjoyed that.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

14. I have a suggestion:

Ask your superiors about debunking other polls. Explain the situation and get their guidance.

[Lex]

6. So if you'd just be discussing your take on other people's polling info?

Nothing wrong with that, imho.

[MiniMe]

29. The only problem with that is that he would be discussing it with knowledge

of the internal polling. Everybody who has read this post will read anything he posts with a slant towards he knows what the internal polls say. And sometimes it is hard to not let that knowledge slant your posts, even if it is not intended.

[many a good man]

11. Go for it

The opposition has their own analysts and most likely much better info and analysis in their own polls. No harm no foul.

[ColbertWatcher]

13. Allow me to suggest another layer of anonymity.

The Truthiness Encyclopedia has pages on math, global warming, astronomy and CERN's LHC (!) All are satirical, or at least try to be.

We even have one on statistics

You can post what you want, anonymously but only after you register an account.

Be careful not to use a work computer.

Make sure what you post is written as if for an encyclopedia.

[ColbertWatcher]

21. If you choose to do this, do not post without registering first-- it will record your IP. n/t

[HughMoran]

15. Your post asks and answers your own question

You already know the answer. As a professional myself, let me state the obvious - of course you can't discuss without tipping your hand. You could have if you hadn't posted this missive, so clearly your conscience was bothering you!

[Teaser]

16. Perhaps its best just to leave DU for a bit

to remove the contradictions
that would suck, though.

oh, this post didn't really *tip my hand* though. I had revealed my intentions to work for the campaign to some other DUers. It wold have gotten out.

[underseasurveyor]

17. Perhaps you should err on the side of caution

lest you slip and skew yerself.

[bbgrunt]

27. haha. that would poisson the waters for sure.

[gravity]

18. Don't do it

It is compromising your integrity as a professional. As much as we would like to get the juicy details, you have to resist the urge.

[Teaser]

19. Oh I would never intentionally spill anything

I was just wondering if anyone thought it was humanly possible not to...but I think that's been answered.

[MiniMe]

31. Just the fact that you posted the question tells me that anything you posted

and accidentally revealed would not be intentional. But how can you debunk polls without having the knowledge of the internal polls. At the very least you would have to re-register with a different user name, because now that you posted this, anything you post will be looked at extra critically. I would think you are safe on anything non poll related, unless you have other inside information. If you do, a break from posting may be best.

I do have a suggestion on the internal polling though. We all know that the cell phones not being polled can skew the results of the polls, but I have been wondering lately if those with caller ID may also be doing the same thing. I know that I don't answer the phone for any call that doesn't come up with an ID. Just a thought.

[undeterred]

20. I worked for the Obama campaign

so I am devoid of any illusion that they do anything other than fly by the seats of their pants at all times and are run by a bunch of college students.

[DCKit]

36. If only we could all fly so well - by the seat of our pants.

The results McSame is getting with planning and a Brazillion "experts" on staff is stunningly laughable.

[Dorian Gray]

22. I'd avoid

discussion of polling if it would lead to a potential conflict of interest.

[BrainStorm]

23. Maybe you can just use DHS's color code to tell us how it's going.

Like, is it yellow or orange or red?

:D

[Uncle Joe]

24. I would imagine you should just use your moral judgment,

that's what ethics is all about.

Which to you serves the higher moral purpose?

On the one hand a candidate has a duty to self-promote and I can understand contractual agreements to not revealing that candidate's internal polling.

On the other hand if a news organization or independent polling firm was purposely brainwashing the American People with false or misleading data, that would be something else entirely. The offending party would in effect be perverting the democratic process by distorting the lifeblood required by the American People for their most critical political deliberative process.

[rufus dog]

25. I think if you keep it generic

you are just providing illumination.

For example if you generically state how polling can be inaccurate based upon over sampling and use example of numbers no issue, if you get into detail and state our campaign uses x% dems, x% repub and NBC used x% then you may be crossing the line.

[bbgrunt]

26. debunking the polls is valuable education.

Could you teach a class in statistics and still perform your campaign job without compromise?

I really don't see a conflict unless you can't control your enthusiasm to interject info you gain from the campaign. I don't think it even creates an "appearance" problem as long as it is handled professionally.

[CitizenPatriot]

28. can't answer that question for you

but I work for the campaign too and to address the other poster who worked for them -- my experience with them has been GREAT. I'm amazed at the organization. Sorry to hear yours wasn't as great.

In terms of OP's ethics, it seems you could talk in generalities re polling as a process. But I'd be careful about revealing anything -- esp since these boards are trolled for info by the enemy.

I know there are some things I'd like to share, but again tonight at our meeting, we were reminded not to discuss these things.

Obama winning is the most important thing.....

I'm sure you will make the right choice and do the right thing.

BTW, Daily Kos had article about polling and how the latest polls had polled more repukes than dems, leading to higher numbers for pukes. I know nada about polling, except that I have never been called. and I work with the media, which has made me deeply cynical about polls, media, any way a "story" can be distorted.

[MiniMe]

33. What I learned in my college statistics class was that you can make statistics

say anything you want as long as you ask the question properly. For example, you could prove that drinking milk (either breat or substitute) as a baby can be a cause of cancer.

Extreme example because all babies who don't have milk allergies drink milk as a baby. So the poll could say that for those that have cancer, 95% of them drank breat milk as a baby. Of course, the statistic for all babies would be the same, but that wouldn't be published.

[renate]

30. pretend you're teaching a statistics class

If it's possible to talk in generalizations (say, about the percentage of people who have cell phones and aren't included in polls)--that is, the kind of thing that's available on The Google but that you could save us some time in looking up--I would think that would be fine. In other words, maybe one step removed from what you were talking about doing with other specific, but non-campaign-paid-for, polls--just talk in the most sweeping generalities you can.

[dansolo]

32. You can probably address issues like methodology

But I would steer clear of analysis.

[Vincardog]

34. Why not just get yourself a new name? If you want to talk about the SnewZ media's polls just sign

on as "Dick"

[endthewar]

35. It's your decision, but you'll have to live with it

The best answer to any moral quandary is to understand that you live with the decisions that you make. Even ones about loyalty and a contract.

[scheming daemons]

37. Dude... you have an anonymous ID here.... nobody can even tell if you're telling the truth...

let alone who you're working for.


Much ado about nothing.

[scheming daemons]

38. One thing you COULD do... tell us whether we should be optimistic or pessimistic