Election predictions

[rwarn17588]

My claims have not changed. But, your trying to put words in my mouth never ceases.

That particular poll looks to be manipulated to achieve a goal, even though the underlaying data probably remains valid. The sample and margin of error were facts they presented, not me. And, the timing of the posting was an issue.

So, it was indeed not just pretty inaccurate, it was wholly inaccurate for the timing. Context, but do also question the content as it appeared oddly formulated for presentation, not odd in original methodology.

But, I'm repeating myself and you didn't get it the first time.

I did not put words in your mouth that you already said.

You made the initial claim that the Tulsa World's polling was "pretty inaccurate in recent years." When I called you out on it and you offered zero proof of the polls' alleged inaccuracies, you tried to go another direction. That's indisputable.

And, again, you've offered no proof that the poll was manipulated. How did the election results differ drastically from what was already indicated in the GOP primary poll?

[Wrinkle]

I did not put words in your mouth that you already said.

You made the initial claim that the Tulsa World's polling was "pretty inaccurate in recent years." When I called you out on it and you offered zero proof of the polls' alleged inaccuracies, you tried to go another direction. That's indisputable.

And, again, you've offered no proof that the poll was manipulated. How did the election results differ drastically from what was already indicated in the GOP primary poll?

Asking me for proof is no different than you not being able to prove otherwise.

I can say my observations seem to be shared by several others who know more about polls than I. And, you can read their descriptions which are similar to mine at the links below:

http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/09/poll-comparison.html

http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=2901

As for proof, none can be offered since access to enough information to do so is not possible, a position you seem to stand behind and one the World enjoys as well.

[RecycleMichael]

Rwarn...he used the tulsabeacon as a source.

o snap!

[Wrinkle]

Rwarn...he used the tulsabeacon as a source.

o snap!

I wonder if other people discount you to the same degree you do others. I'm starting to.

Can't argue the points, huh?

[Conan71]

Personally, I don't think polls should ever be reported right before an election.  There should be some sort of blackout period, maybe for a week before the election, or at least a few days.

Of course, the media is free to do what it wants.  I just think for the sake of fairness, they just shouldn't post them. 

+1 PM

[rwarn17588]

Rwarn...he used the tulsabeacon as a source.

o snap!

Ooooh, I'm so skeered. 

[rwarn17588]

Nobody's posted this yet, so here goes.

Sooner Poll published in the Tulsa World today. Poll conducted from Oct. 31 to Nov. 5; margin of error 3.7 percent.

Bartlett 40%
Adelson 32
Perkins 14
Kirkpatrick 1
undecided/didn't say 13

Pollster took note that Perkins is peeling votes away from Adelson and Bartlett equally. Looks like Adelson has a tough hill to climb, unless a bunch of Perkins voters get cold feet or Adelson gets nearly all the undecideds, which isn't unprecedented. Carter and Reagan were neck and neck in 1980 until Ronnie got nearly all the undecideds with a few days left in the campaign and turned it into a rout.

Perkins is doing OK, but not nearly well enough. I think that speech he gave a few days ago, about how he claimed Bartlett was concerned and flagging, actually was a Hail Mary in an effort to shore up Perkins' support.

Race for city auditor is too close to call. Voters are rejecting councilor term changes by about 10 points. Other two questions will pass easily.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=262&articleid=20091108_16_A1_Twomon52819

[FOTD]

FOTD's prediction stands!

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14547.0

[rwarn17588]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I've always thought this perception about Adelson having the lead struck me as suspect. Tulsa contains more Republicans than Democrats, so any GOP candidate has an inherent advantage.

I know that some Republicans are grumbling a lot about Bartlett. But I'll bet you'll find that very few will bail on the GOP candidate when they get into the voting booth. About the only time they actually do bail is when they've got an obvious failure in an incumbent such as LaFortune and they want a change in the mayor's office.

[SXSW]

That poll was only 687 people.  I still like Adelson's chances to win.

[pmcalk]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I've always thought this perception about Adelson having the lead struck me as suspect. Tulsa contains more Republicans than Democrats, so any GOP candidate has an inherent advantage.

I know that some Republicans are grumbling a lot about Bartlett. But I'll bet you'll find that very few will bail on the GOP candidate when they get into the voting booth. About the only time they actually do bail is when they've got an obvious failure in an incumbent such as LaFortune and they want a change in the mayor's office.

While that may be true, there have been a lot of democratic mayors in Tulsa.  Since 1984, a democrat has been elected mayor 5 times; republican only twice:

Terry Young (D)

Dick Crawford (R)
Roger Randle (D)
Susan Savage (2X) (D)

Bill LaFortune (R)
Kathy Tayor (D)

Actually, with the exception of the LaFortune administration, Democrats have pretty consistently held the Mayors office.  I think the TW is under estimating Perkin's chances.  They are probably not counting the young vote, since young people are less likely to vote.  But I think more of them will turn out for Perkins, and possibly Adelson.

[rwarn17588]

That poll was only 687 people.  I still like Adelson's chances to win.

But it's a representative sample of the city of Tulsa. The margin of error is low, too. Even with a huge sample size, the margin of error is still going to be about 2 percent.

I'm not saying Adelson doesn't win. But I think has chances to win are only about 40 percent or so. A lot of things have to go his way (strong undecideds, good Dem turnout, poor GOP turnout, Perkins' campaign fading) for him to do it.

[rwarn17588]

While that may be true, there have been a lot of democratic mayors in Tulsa.  Since 1984, a democrat has been elected mayor 5 times; republican only twice:

<snip>

Actually, with the exception of the LaFortune administration, Democrats have pretty consistently held the Mayors office.  I think the TW is under estimating Perkin's chances.  They are probably not counting the young vote, since young people are less likely to vote.  But I think more of them will turn out for Perkins, and possibly Adelson.

That true, but you're not accounting for the Republican Party gaining in strength in Oklahoma over the past 10, 15 years. It's much easier for a Republican to do well in this state than it was.

Hell, even LaFortune, even as lousy as a mayor as he was, surged in the past week or so of the campaign and came within 4 points of Taylor. It's not wise to dismiss the GOP vote.

[pmcalk]

But it's a representative sample of the city of Tulsa. The margin of error is low, too. Even with a huge sample size, the margin of error is still going to be about 2 percent.

I'm not saying Adelson doesn't win. But I think has chances to win are only about 40 percent or so. A lot of things have to go his way (strong undecideds, good Dem turnout, poor GOP turnout, Perkins' campaign fading) for him to do it.

The problem with all polling is that it is based upon "likely voters".  Everyone has their own subjective opinion of who is a "likely voter".  Will young people vote?  Will new registrants vote?  Who will be better at getting out the vote on election day?  

I agree that the poll does put Adelson at a disadvantage.  But it doesn't say who is going to win.

[rwarn17588]

I agree that the poll does put Adelson at a disadvantage.  But it doesn't say who is going to win.

Agreed.

And if you squint real hard, you can make the argument that Adelson is nearly tied if you get extremely generous by adding/subtracting with the margin of error.

But let's face it -- if I were a mayoral candidate, I'd much rather be in Bartlett's position than Adelson's.