We all know campaigns conduct polls, even though candidates don’t like to admit that they use them.  And polling isn’t just for tracking current support. Campaigns use polls to decide what to say, how to say it, and when.

In fact, at this stage in the game in Iowa, the most important poll questions that a campaign asks aren’t simply about who a voter will caucus for; they are the “Why” questions. Campaigns are busy gathering information about what messages voters are receptive to.  And the questions they ask in their “messaging polls” may yield valuable information about what to expect in the months to come.  That is why, although we do not have a complete record of the call, we have decided to report on a messaging poll conducted by Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign over the past few weeks.Jason Eness-Potter, a Democrat from Iowa City, answered his phone May 25 without expecting an extensive probe of his political views, but that’s what he got.  “I was on the phone with the person for about 40 minutes” before getting tired of the questions and ending the survey, he said.  From his sketch of the questions asked, we can draw a few inferences:

When Eness-Potter picked up the phone, the caller first asked for his wife, Kerri, who he says has been more of a caucus activist than he has in past years.    This is not surprising, since campaigns use voter file data from previous years to determine who is most likely to attend the caucuses or to influence other caucus-goers.  But many of the survey questions centered around Sen. Clinton in the context of feminism and women’s rights, so the poll may also have been intended more for women than for men.  Either of these scenarios seems plausible.  When Eness-Potter said that his wife was not available, the caller agreed to survey Jason instead.

The caller identified his questions as a survey about “voter persuasion.”  After asking the standard party ID questions (roughly, “Are you a Democrat?” and “Would you consider yourself moderate, somewhat progressive, or very progressive?”), the questions became more issue-specific.  Eness-Potter recalls being asked, among other things, “Do you consider yourself a feminist?”  Answers to the issue questions were in terms of a 1 to 9 scale.

Two queries in this line of questioning stood out to Eness-Potter.  He was asked, again on a 1 to 9 scale, “As an Iowan, do you feel that Iowa’s role in the caucuses is very important or ‘a silly waste of time?’ ”  The caller also asked a question seemingly aimed at measuring the sociability of the respondent: “In a group of people you do not know, do you generally introduce yourself to people or do you wait for others to introduce themselves to you?”  This question may have been aimed at measuring how much of an influence Eness-Potter's political views could have on others.

Next, the questions turned specifically to the candidates.  The caller also asked the standard candidate ID question, “Who are you most likely to support in the caucuses?”  (Eness-Potter identified himself as leaning towards Sen. Obama.)  A standard, public poll may have finished here, but the caller pressed on with questions about Sen. Clinton.  He asked first what Eness-Potter's general approval rating of Clinton was, following up with carefully worded questions about Clinton: Do you feel that she is too strong of a feminist?  Do you plan to support another candidate "because [Sen. Clinton] stands by her convictions on her war vote and refuses to back down?"

Then, Eness-Potter got a glimpse of what may become the positive side of Clinton’s message: “During Bill Clinton’s administration, the Clintons helped to create 100,000 jobs in Iowa.  After hearing this, is your opinion of Sen. Clinton higher or lower?”  The caller went on to ask a few questions about Clinton’s campaign platform, asking whether specific campaign promises, as worded by the campaign’s pollster, make Jason more or less likely to support her.

But the survey didn’t end there.  As Eness-Potter’s patience continued to wane, the caller started into the negative questions about Clinton’s opponents.  Although he cut the caller off fairly quickly after he saw where the caller was headed, he recalled two questions — one about Sen. Barack Obama and the other about former Sen. John Edwards — that were particularly memorable.

On Sen. Obama, the caller’s question had to do with the war: Paraphrased, it was “Sen. Obama boasts of his consistent opposition to the war, but he has contradicted himself by voting for appropriation bills to fund it.  Does this make you approve of Sen. Obama more or less?”

And on Edwards, the subject was, predictably, about his $400 haircut a month or so ago.

It was roughly at that point in the call that Eness-Potter excused himself and hung up –- after the caller admitted to him that the survey was commissioned by the Clinton campaign.

When I spoke with him, Eness-Potter cautioned me that his account of the questions is far from exhaustive, and that there were many more than he could remember.  He only relayed the parts of the call that he felt he could portray accurately.

Still, the questions asked –- particularly the questions about Edwards and Obama –- may shed light on what voters in Iowa and around the country can expect from the Clinton campaign over the next year.

A similar message poll that went out to voters in New Hampshire has been documented on other blogs.  Alex Forshaw, for instance, was able to trace the firm conducting the survey, which identified itself as "PSA Interviewing," to Mark Penn, a top advisor to Sen. Clinton and a previous advisor to former President Bill Clinton.  When asked if the call Eness-Potter received was attributed by the caller to "PSA Interviewing," Eness-Potter said "that sounds right."

The Clinton campaign did not respond to our request for comment.

Have you participated in a phone survey recently?  If you would like to relate your experiences to Iowa Independent, please e-mail the editor.