In CA-47 Race, Gary DeLong Campaigners Start Lying to OC Voters Early

This came over the transom from Daniel Chavez, campaign manager for State Sen. Alan Lowenthal in his race against Long Beach City Councilman Gary DeLong for the 47th District seat in Congress.


Right now Republican Gary DeLong or some organization on his behalf is “push-polling” voters with aggressively negative information about Alan Lowenthal.

Have you been a victim of this deceptive and unethical attack?

“Push-polling” is a deceptive practice where voters are misled into believing they are participating in a valid opinion survey, but are instead delivered a long list of misleading and negative information about a candidate, in this case Alan Lowenthal.

Email us at if you have received one of these push-poll calls.

Push-polling occurs when candidates unable to win on their records come to the conclusion they can only win through tricking voters with misleading negative attacks.

Too often, it works. Don’t let Republican Gary DeLong’s campaign win by breaking the rules. Let us know if you have received one of these “push-polls” so we can expose these tactics to the light of day, and dispel the lies.

I’ve seen a lot of negative campaigns in my time, but never one that started this early and this aggressively. It shows how much the Republicans in Congress are willing to hit below the belt to defeat Alan Lowenthal, and instead elect another Republican vote for their anti-middle class, anti-health-care, and pro-corporation agenda.

Don’t let that happen here. Let us know right away if you’ve been a victim of Republican dirty tricks.

Email us at or call our office at (562) 594-4300.

Daniel Chavez
Campaign Manager
Alan Lowenthal for Congress
5555 Stearns Street, Ste. 206
Long Beach, CA 90815
(562) 594-4300

I strongly disagree with Chavez about one thing: if you have received this push poll call, you should first post a comment here telling us everything you remember about it, and then e-mail the Lowenthal campaign with the details.

For those of you who have never experienced a push poll, it would usually assess your likelihood to vote for the candidates and then ask you questions such as:

“Would it affect your vote if you were informed that Gary DeLong embezzled $1.2 million from a former business and was only not successfully prosecuted due to a technicality?”

“Would it affect your vote if you were informed that Gary DeLong has had sexual affairs while in office with three city janitorial workers, seven city clerical workers, and two police horses?”

“Would it affect your vote if you were informed that Gary DeLong has been involved with several cults that keep members falsely imprisoned and drain their personal and family resources until they are used up, at which point they are shipped to do manual labor in South America?”

Gary DeLong depicted holding scared puppy's head

Would it make you more likely, or less likely, to vote for Gary DeLong if you knew that he once pulled the head off of a terrified puppy and ate it, all on live TV? All right, is that strongly or slightly less likely?

By the way, none of that’s true — I just made up each one out of whole cloth — but they really stick in your mind, don’t they?  They’re likely to affect your initial impression and to get people talking in a whisper campaign about DeLong’s actions.  (Push polls don’t include the denial that I just gave here.)  And the best part, from the perspectives of the miscreants who do this, is that it isn’t even lying.  “I’m not asserting that he did these things, I’m just asking you if it would affect your vote if he did do these things.”  If you’re really impressed by the ethical difference there, you may have a role waiting for you in the DeLong campaign or whatever sympathetic group is paying for these stinking rotten polls.

In my grad school training in public opinion research, we were told that AAPOR (the relevant professional organization) considered push polls to be an unethical abomination.  I’d love to find out who’s conducting these polls so that maybe, for once, there could be some ethical consequences.

About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-retired due to disability, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally runs for office against bad people who would otherwise go unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that. Corrupt party hacks hate him. He's OK with that too. He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)