I attended the debate on Wed night when Mike Lumpkin made the referenced claim. His several supporters at the event were ecstatic … those in the know were simply amused. One person asked me how a candidate could only be three ponts ahead when polling his own supporters….
October 23, 2008
TO: Duncan D. Hunter
FR: Dave Gilliard
RE: Mike Lumpkin’s “informal poll”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I understand that Mike Lumpkin claimed during last night’s debate that he had an “informal poll” showing him “3 points ahead.”
While “informal” polls are worth what you pay for them, our last formal poll, about 14 days old and conducted by one of the top political pollsters in America, showed you with a very solid 23 point lead among likely General Election voters.
Since our poll was completed, Lumpkin’s campaign has met with nothing but bad news. The DCCC has not funded his race, the daily campaign reports show that he is not raising any significant money, and the San Diego Union Tribune endorsed you.
Our poll’s sample size was 400 and the margin of error was +/- 4.9.
I suspect the margin of error on Lumpkin’s “informal” poll was closer to +/- 25%.
###
Attached is the memo.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I rc’d the following comment from Ron Oberndorfer, and told him I’d post it, as he has attempted to post it himself to no avail. It’s not a conspiracy, Ron!…
I guess we’ll see. I don’t know what it’s worth, but there is a huge buzz in our district about Mike Lumpkin. Many conservatives I’ve spoken with, who have already voted, have voted for Mike because he is so much more qualified than Duncan D. and they don’t like the dynasty concept. I’ve found what they tell their conservative friends (and maybe pollsters) is not necessarily how they are voting. Anyone who has listened to Mike and Duncan will vote for Mike, hands down!
Ron