With one week out, does anyone want to make some predictions?
Mayor?
Auditor?
Councilors?
I'll start by going out on a limb--I predict that GT Bynum will keep his seat.
Bartlett 41
Adelson 46
Perkins 13
Wood 58
Doerflinger 42
Gomez 53
Barnes 47
Adelson 38
Bartlett 34
Perkins 28
Wood 52
Doerflinger 48
Gomez 50
Barnes 50
recount
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 03, 2009, 02:02:32 PM
Adelson 38
Bartlett 34
Perkins 28
Wood 52
Doerflinger 48
Gomez 50
Barnes 50
recount
What? A few weeks ago you scoffed at me saying Perkins would get 13 and now you think he'll get 28?
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 03, 2009, 02:09:27 PM
What? A few weeks ago you scoffed at me saying Perkins would get 13 and now you think he'll get 28?
He's on TV now. That means he'll get some votes even though voters won't remember which one he is...just that they've heard his name.
I'm pretty much in line with RM.
Adelson wins by a comfortable but not huge margin.
Bartlett has a disappointing showing but good enough to be an also ran.
Perkins surprises many because:
1) Negative campaigning by the "major party" candidates.
2) Growing name recognition because he is willing to talk to anyone.
3) Growing discontent with the old guard candidates for mayor.
I think Perkins is gaining support simply by not being "one of them." When both major candidates go negative from the beginning, it turns people off. Perkins may not have the knowledge and experience necessary to run a city (he may not be alone in that way), but he's at least not wasting time being nasty.
For many, it's a big turnoff when all you do is "swift boat" your opponent. I question the leadership abilities of folks who go negative in a campaign. It's not a very useful tactic in local politics...especially when you are trying to solve problems, build coalitions and get people to work together in a community.
I want candidates who can tell me about their vision, get people excited about it, and explain their strategies for achieving it. I don't want folks who waste time attacking the opposition...especially when they have to stretch the truth just to make ugly rumors more virulent.
This campaign has been a total turn off. Ugh.
Ponder: yet another problem with a two party system. When you assume (usually rightly so) that there are only two viable candidates - it's easier to beat the other guy up than espouse the positives of yourself. If I can convince a % of the voters that Adelson likes child molesters, I win. It doesn't matter what my positions, qualifications, or records are.
Throw in (an) additional candidate(s) and that tactic no longer works.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 03, 2009, 02:09:27 PM
What? A few weeks ago you scoffed at me saying Perkins would get 13 and now you think he'll get 28?
A few weeks is forever in election time.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 03, 2009, 02:36:47 PM
A few weeks is forever in election time.
And we still have another week left, and there is no telling what can happen in that time frame.
Bartlett %44
Adelson %38
Perkins %18
The devil is wondering what % of Tulsa votes....my guess is %9 of the city population.
Care to guess?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 03, 2009, 02:36:47 PM
A few weeks is forever in election time.
So what you're saying is that I'm ahead of my time.
Quote from: FOTD on November 03, 2009, 04:13:45 PM
The devil is wondering what % of Tulsa votes....my guess is %9 of the city population.
Care to guess?
I think you're being generous.
6% undervote for Mayor ( whats the usual average? )
One could easily predict the class of mid-town voters will select the next mayor who has available twice the funds that the job pays. That the number of voters will be limited to less than 20% of the eligible's voters which by the early count of three mid-town precincts has determined the outcome of such elections. One could predict that this is the costliest city election recorded. It could become a national record for a city of about 380,000 entering into a deep recession. If a federal grand jury is in session it could draw their attention as why such an effort would be made to control the city for four years. As to predicting the outcome one might say its "cut and dried already hanging out in the sun to cure".
Clearly all mid-town people here. What about Mautino/Troyer? Patrick/Turner?
I think Perkins will do better than most independents, but 28% is way too high, RM. I think more likely 15%, which is pretty good considering he has 1/3 the money as the other guys. I like Perkins, but think he is too inexperienced. I say Adelson 44%; Bartlett 43%.
While I understand the frustration with the two party system, I still think it is better. Whomever wins next week, you can pretty much guess that more than half the voters in Tulsa preferred someone else. Nobody can get much done because, even after the election, the majority of voters will be against him or her. I think it is much easier for powerful special interests to gain control. If we had instant runoffs, perhaps I would think differently, but I would worry that too many voters would not understand the process of instant runoffs.
I think city auditor will be interesting to watch. Phil Wood has been auditor for a very long time, and has good name recognition. On the other hand, this is the first time I recall a significant contender. If Mr. Wood wins this time, you can pretty much guess he'll have his job until he decides to quit.
I am surprised at the Barnes/Gomez predictions. Gomez nearly lost his primary--only capturing 55%, and losing several precincts. He has a tough road ahead anyway, since District 4 has more democrats. Not only does he have to capture all of the republicans, he needs a significant number of democrats, and all of the independents. I guess he might pull it off, but he hasn't been without controversy.
Adelson 47
Bartlett 38
Perkins 15
Wood 53
Doerflinger 47
Barnes 55
Gomez 45
Troyer 58
Mautino 42
Patrick 52
Turner 48
Which brings up the question of why there have been absolutely no polls published. Guess the World doesn't like what it sees in them.
Imagine they'll post one of those 10-day old polls later in the week. Their polling has been pretty inaccurate in recent years anyway. At least, as it relates to contenders.
Adelson boasted that polls showed him with a double digit lead last week. Most likely a privately conducted poll but I didn't hear Bartlett quote any poll at all. World won't spend the money. They are all on TV now with pretty good ads. Perkins has much appeal and Inhofe has reared his image. Gomez has a good mailer that is going to make the difference.
My guess is these races are very close and my projections could easily flip:
Adelson 47%
Bartlett 42%
Perkins 11%
Barnes 45%
Gomez 55%
Woods 60%
Doerflinger 40%
I saw in Urbantulsa yesterday that Rocky Frisco endorsed Maria Barnes. I think that will have an effect. My predictions:
Adelson: 44%
Bartlett: 42%
Perkins: 14%
Barnes: 53%
Gomez: 47%
Wood: 55%
Doerflinger: 45%
Troyer: 54%
Mautino: 46%
Patrick: 53%
Turner: 47%
Quote from: Wrinkle on November 04, 2009, 11:26:59 PM
Imagine they'll post one of those 10-day old polls later in the week. Their polling has been pretty inaccurate in recent years anyway. At least, as it relates to contenders.
I'm calling B.S.
Inaccurate compared to what? In city races, Taylor outpolled LaFortune, Bartlett outpolled Medlock and Falling, and LaFortune outpolled Miller and Medlock. Guess who won?
Sure, the numbers shift around, but that's because of the undecided voters. The ultimate outcomes matched what the polls indicated.
The only poll I can recall the World published that was outright wrong was Carson holding a slim lead over Coburn in the Senate race. That one was close to the margin of error, and it was a polling firm that wasn't the usual one being used.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 05, 2009, 08:33:12 AM
I'm calling B.S.
Inaccurate compared to what? In city races, Taylor outpolled LaFortune, Bartlett outpolled Medlock and Falling, and LaFortune outpolled Miller and Medlock. Guess who won?
Sure, the numbers shift around, but that's because of the undecided voters. The ultimate outcomes matched what the polls indicated.
The only poll I can recall the World published that was outright wrong was Carson holding a slim lead over Coburn in the Senate race. That one was close to the margin of error, and it was a polling firm that wasn't the usual one being used.
Outpolling or winning are terms not necessarily associated with accuracy.
And, I qualified it as to contendors. I'll agree the winners were
often picked correctly, but the polling of others were way off.
For example, World put Medlock's poll at (working from memory only)
around 5-7%. He received about 18% of the vote. If half or less counted,
I'd be great at horse shoes.
And, why are polls not published upon conclusion, rather than waiting 10 days or more? As you know/claim, things can change a lot in that period.
I'd suggest it to depict what was desired.
Quote from: Wrinkle on November 05, 2009, 09:45:40 AM
Outpolling or winning are terms not necessarily associated with accuracy.
And, I qualified it as to contendors. I'll agree the winners were
often picked correctly, but the polling of others were way off.
For example, World put Medlock's poll at (working from memory only)
around 5-7%. He received about 18% of the vote. If half or less counted,
I'd be great at horse shoes.
Again, I'm calling B.S.
Why would you think those polls are inaccurate? After all, I mentioned that there was a sizable percentage of undecided voters during the polls -- as there usually are even a day or two before an election. This is nothing new or unusual. What makes you think Medlock's take of 5-7% (as you claim) a week or two before an election -- with as many as 20-25 percent of the electorate undecided -- was inaccurate?
As for your "contenders" (whatever that means), it still doesn't change the fact that the poll before the primary showed Medlock had a huge hill to climb to even have a shot at winning the race. The results during the primary did nothing to refute that poll.
I think you're equating "inaccurate" to "I don't like what the poll is saying." Those are not the same things.
My favorite "inaccurate" Tulsa World poll was the one they used a Wescott photo instead of a Medlock photo..
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 05, 2009, 10:27:41 AM
Again, I'm calling B.S.
Why would you think those polls are inaccurate? After all, I mentioned that there was a sizable percentage of undecided voters during the polls -- as there usually are even a day or two before an election. This is nothing new or unusual. What makes you think Medlock's take of 5-7% (as you claim) a week or two before an election -- with as many as 20-25 percent of the electorate undecided -- was inaccurate?
As for your "contenders" (whatever that means), it still doesn't change the fact that the poll before the primary showed Medlock had a huge hill to climb to even have a shot at winning the race. The results during the primary did nothing to refute that poll.
I think you're equating "inaccurate" to "I don't like what the poll is saying." Those are not the same things.
I'm not suggesting the methodology of the polling firm was inaccurate. The context was. Waiting 10 days to post obsolete data two days before an election paints an inaccurate picture. And, was intended to do so, which makes it unethical, IMO.
iirc, on that particular poll, there were other oddities to go along with the weird results. Like a polling count of 483 "likely voters" when polls such as this are typically in round numbers like 400 or 500. And, the published margin of error was something like +/-5.35% when these are very normally more like +/-4.0%.
It was like data were grouped and targeted selectively.
Quote from: Wrinkle on November 05, 2009, 10:01:54 PM
I'm not suggesting the methodology of the polling firm was inaccurate. The context was. Waiting 10 days to post obsolete data two days before an election paints an inaccurate picture. And, was intended to do so, which makes it unethical, IMO.
iirc, on that particular poll, there were other oddities to go along with the weird results. Like a polling count of 483 "likely voters" when polls such as this are typically in round numbers like 400 or 500. And, the published margin of error was something like +/-5.35% when these are very normally more like +/-4.0%.
It was like data were grouped and targeted selectively.
OK, so now you admit there's no real evidence the methodology was wrong or inaccurate.
There was no inaccurate picture of the poll, since it was perfectly clear when the poll was taken.
The number polled isn't always in round numbers. They're taken in numbers so that the proportions match the proportions of Republicans and Democrats in an area. And error rates vary according to how many people you poll.
And now you're suggesting that the report about the poll was a conspiracy to suppress the already woefully anemic Medlock vote. And guess what? It
was woefully anemic. It's like you're mad that the poll was accurate.
Sheesh. Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 05, 2009, 10:38:21 PM
OK, so now you admit there's no real evidence the methodology was wrong or inaccurate.
There was no inaccurate picture of the poll, since it was perfectly clear when the poll was taken.
The number polled isn't always in round numbers. They're taken in numbers so that the proportions match the proportions of Republicans and Democrats in an area. And error rates vary according to how many people you poll.
And now you're suggesting that the report about the poll was a conspiracy to suppress the already woefully anemic Medlock vote. And guess what? It was woefully anemic. It's like you're mad that the poll was accurate.
Sheesh. Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
No, the poll, as presented, was intended to present an inaccurate picture at the time of its posting. The poll itself, in terms of raw data and methodology was probably fine. IOW, it was irrelevant at the time, presented in a way to make it look relevant, and at a time when it could most affect voter impressions.
The World made mention of its intent to publish a Mayoral poll in this Sunday's edition (for the first time), two days pre-election. Let's see how that one presents.
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.
Quote from: Wrinkle on November 06, 2009, 07:43:17 AM
No, the poll, as presented, was intended to present an inaccurate picture at the time of its posting. The poll itself, in terms of raw data and methodology was probably fine. IOW, it was irrelevant at the time, presented in a way to make it look relevant, and at a time when it could most affect voter impressions.
The World made mention of its intent to publish a Mayoral poll in this Sunday's edition (for the first time), two days pre-election. Let's see how that one presents.
To recap, you now no longer claim the polls were "pretty inaccurate," as you did earlier.
Your main objection now is not based on fact, but an opinion that a poll that's a few days old and shows Bartlett with a humongous lead in the GOP race
might sway voters' opinions, even though you've presented no evidence it ever did so.
This is what we call "moving the goalposts."
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 06, 2009, 08:39:45 AM
To recap, you now no longer claim the polls were "pretty inaccurate," as you did earlier.
Your main objection now is not based on fact, but an opinion that a poll that's a few days old and shows Bartlett with a humongous lead in the GOP race might sway voters' opinions, even though you've presented no evidence it ever did so.
This is what we call "moving the goalposts."
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.
Quote from: Wrinkle on November 06, 2009, 09:41:43 AM
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?
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 06, 2009, 10:50:03 AM
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.batesline.com/archives/2009/09/poll-comparison.html)
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=2901 (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.
Rwarn...he used the tulsabeacon as a source.
o snap!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 06, 2009, 12:33:15 PM
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?
Quote from: pmcalk on November 06, 2009, 08:37:34 AM
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
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 06, 2009, 12:33:15 PM
Rwarn...he used the tulsabeacon as a source.
o snap!
Ooooh, I'm so skeered. :D
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's prediction stands!
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14547.0
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.
That poll was only 687 people. I still like Adelson's chances to win.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 08, 2009, 10:02:36 AM
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.
Quote from: SXSW on November 08, 2009, 10:28:55 AM
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.
Quote from: pmcalk on November 08, 2009, 10:37:00 AM
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.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 08, 2009, 10:41:23 AM
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.
Quote from: pmcalk on November 08, 2009, 10:50:00 AM
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.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 08, 2009, 10:47:04 AM
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.
I don't think really disagree much, but I would add that 4 points, when the vast majority of people always vote party lines, is actually a pretty significant difference. Also, Taylor went into the general election after a pretty nasty democratic primary, and I understand there was a low turnout on the northside (though overall, the turnout was high). I have been told that the number of democrats vs. repubicans
in the city of Tulsa--not county is actually pretty close. The difference is that the republicans are more reliable in turnout. Adelson has done a good deal to reach out to the north side--if they go vote, he could pull it off.
Apparently, the World didn't like the survey results for the Council races.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 08, 2009, 10:41:23 AM
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.
A representative sample? If it took 7 days that sounds like one person doing it by calling home phone numbers, likely during 8-5. That means you're going to be getting white republican housewives in midtown and south Tulsa. Even if you tried pulling from different polling districts, there is still going to be some skew to the numbers. I think you are missing one of the biggest factors in this race and that is the city council elections. Most of south and wealthy midtown already has their council race decided and thanks to TW, thinks their mayoral candidate has it in the bag, why would they vote?
Quote...ne person doing it by calling home phone numbers, likely during 8-5. That means you're going to be getting white republican housewives in midtown and south Tulsa.
...and all the welfare slackers drinking beer for breakfast at home. ;)
Quote from: buckeye on November 09, 2009, 11:04:24 AM
...and all the welfare slackers drinking beer for breakfast at home. ;)
They are more likely to not have a home phone line.
I was wondering about the polling methodology, too. In the past few years I know of many people who have eliminated their home phones and just carry cell phones. (It seems like most of these folks tend to be younger...or at least under 40.)
How does that affect the polling? Surely it would eliminate entire groups of people from the list of "likely voters" who could participate in the poll...
Quote from: PonderInc on November 09, 2009, 12:30:53 PM
I was wondering about the polling methodology, too. In the past few years I know of many people who have eliminated their home phones and just carry cell phones. (It seems like most of these folks tend to be younger...or at least under 40.)
How does that affect the polling? Surely it would eliminate entire groups of people from the list of "likely voters" who could participate in the poll...
It eliminates low income due to not owning home phones, younger ages due to using only cell phones, etc.
I have a hme phone for basically free, although it seems mainly used to receive incessant political calls.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 09, 2009, 01:50:22 PM
...although it seems mainly used to receive incessant political calls.
One of the many reasons that I got rid of my landline.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 09, 2009, 01:50:22 PM
It eliminates low income due to not owning home phones, younger ages due to using only cell phones, etc.
I have a hme phone for basically free, although it seems mainly used to receive incessant political calls.
I ditched my land line 6 years ago and to this day no one I know my age (mid 20's) has a land line at their house. With cell phones what is the point?
We have a home phone that is never answered and I really don't even know why we keep it beyond needing a hardline for the security alarm.
Quote from: custosnox on November 09, 2009, 02:05:32 PM
We have a home phone that is never answered and I really don't even know why we keep it beyond needing a hardline for the security alarm.
Many alarm companies offer satellite service which means that it can send signal to the company without a phone line.
Quote from: TURobY on November 09, 2009, 02:26:54 PM
Many alarm companies offer satellite service which means that it can send signal to the company without a phone line.
Eh, we've had the phone for years and most likely won't change that.
Just heard that it was said on the raido that the current pridections has Bartlett taking the race. Anyone else hear this?
Offhand, I'd have to suggest any poll taken exclusively by telephone would provide almost meaningless data.
Besides the cell phone class, who tend to be omitted entirely, many people choose not to answer or respond to telephone surveys these days. So, the super set becomes those who will and also have a land line.
Not to suggest the survey invalid, it is probably accurate for what it is, just that what it is isn't meaningful, at least as it relates to the election at hand.
Not sure I'd have even had presented these results, unless they fit my agenda.
I'm not sure how any of it will turn out but my polling place in 4 was busier than it has been in a long time this morning.
I was happy to see that.
Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2009, 07:53:49 AM
I'm not sure how any of it will turn out but my polling place in 4 was busier than it has been in a long time this morning.
I was happy to see that.
Mine (Cherry Street) wasn't busy at all. :(
East side (Lindbergh Elem Prec 40) just had me at about 7:45 AM. Guess it doesn't hurt that the only things on the ballot were Mayor, City Auditor and the three other city ordiance questions.
Quote from: Hoss on November 10, 2009, 08:42:03 AM
East side (Lindbergh Elem Prec 40) just had me at about 7:45 AM. Guess it doesn't hurt that the only things on the ballot were Mayor, City Auditor and the three other city ordiance questions.
The firestation at 15th and Florence(?) said that they'd actually seen more traffic than usual (at 9:00am).
Looks like the informed people in Florence Park are showing up for Maria.
All of the people I was hoping wouldn't win are leading early on.
For the love of all that is holy, at least don't let Roscoe back on the Council.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on November 10, 2009, 07:23:43 PM
All of the people I was hoping wouldn't win are leading early on.
For the love of all that is holy, at least don't let Roscoe back on the Council.
Or Mautino.
Ahem. It appears the poll was pretty darned accurate.
About the only outlier is that Phil Wood is losing in badly after the poll showed it neck-and-neck. But I attribute that to nearly all the undecided voters going against him. There was an avalanche of endorsements for Wood's challenger from all sides in the final days before the election. And Doerflinger wound up being a pretty strong candidate, despite a lousy surname.
Quote from: FOTD on November 03, 2009, 04:13:45 PM
Bartlett %44
Adelson %38
Perkins %18
The devil is wondering what % of Tulsa votes....my guess is %9 of the city population.
Care to guess?
Is it %18 or just %8?
Whatever, FOTD came closest in the early prediction...before the Whirled even!
TNF's PollStar!
Now for a post-election prediction:
Bartlett will get the police Helicopter(s) back in the air, but it will be for show and at the expense of less visible city needs.
Quote from: patric on November 11, 2009, 11:21:20 AM
Now for a post-election prediction:
Bartlett will get the police Helicopter(s) back in the air, but it will be for show and at the expense of less visible city needs.
Maybe they'll turn off all the acorn lights.
Quote from: patric on November 11, 2009, 11:21:20 AM
Now for a post-election prediction:
Bartlett will get the police Helicopter(s) back in the air, but it will be for show and at the expense of less visible city needs.
I like the helicopters. They flew so much in my neighborhood last summer, we had lower ozone levels.
Quote from: FOTD on November 10, 2009, 11:38:35 PM
Is it %18 or just %8?
Whatever, FOTD came closest in the early prediction...before the Whirled even!
TNF's PollStar!
Great job! Let's go celebrate with a Marshall's and a big doobie. ;)
Quote from: Townsend on November 11, 2009, 11:40:11 AM
Maybe they'll turn off all the acorn lights.
Unfortunately most of the Acorn streetlights are in areas with high pedestrian traffic where streetlights are more necessary.
Most people dont realize that streetlights are for pedestrians, not cars (with headlights).
Its almost like downtown got a heroin habit -- and we are stuck using the bad lights until we have something more economically and visually efficient to replace them with.