As some of you noticed, I posted a controversial comment (available below) concerning Jim Sills’ recent article — a “guest article” written by pollster Raul Furlong (“POLLSTER RAUL FURLONG DRAWS LESSONS FOR 2012 FROM HIS 2005 SD MAYORAL PRIMARY ELECTION SURVEYS.”)
In an unprecedented move, Jim has chosen to DELETE my comment (I didn’t know SDRostra article authors could even do that), with this explanation:
“I’ve removed a comment here which pointlessly attacked Mr. Furlong’s professional credentials. His track record in fairly measuring public opinion is well established. He is here as our guest, offering insights into 2005 to better evaluate the 2012 contest.”
Odd. It seems to me that one of the more lively debates found here has to do with the accuracy of polling — the reliability of the results. Go back and read the robust discussion on this year’s early mayoral poll that put DeMaio in the lead. For the wonks that read this website, the accuracy of polling (and the predictive value) are both important — and expensive.
Clearly the local gold standard in polling is Competitive Edge. They do it right.
As we all know, there are two general (and conflicting) reasons for commissioning a poll:
1. To accurate discover the electorate’s preferences, and to find what issues and positions most resonate with voters (and WHICH voters they resonate with). These polls are often confidential, with the results prized by the commissioners of the poll. Sometimes some of the results are released, but seldom are all such results published — information that could help opponents.
2. To publish a poll to SPIN the electorate’s views to help or hurt one or more candidates’ chances in the election.
Methodology and motivation are key to such polling efforts. Presumably pollsters could do either type of poll, depending on what the commissioners of the poll desire and dictate — though a pollster doubtless understands that doing “push polls” reduces their reputation as objective sources of information.
Which type of poll was Raul’s early mayoral poll? You decide.
But the core issue is whether such discussions and assertions concerning various polls are proper fodder for a political board. Again, you decide.
Here’s my deleted post:
Here’s one aspect of that clever “survey” that Raul fails to mention — and with good reason. As best I recall, everyone was listed with some descriptive title — office held, “businessman” or other title.
Except for one candidate. Me.
“Richard Rider __________”
Why? What would have been my initial numbers if the poll had said who I was — “taxpayer advocate” or “tax fighter” or even businessman? Not enough to win, but that initial poll was used to quickly decide who the players were. I was excluded from the widely televised Lincoln Club debate as a result.
Don’t get me wrong. I would not have won regardless — at least not without “preference voting.” My biggest opponent was the “wasted vote” issue.
But the low initial ranking in this poll caused many to dismiss me as a viable candidate, which is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Did Raul — a long-time observer of San Diego politics — not know who I was? Of course he knew. As I see it, this was an intentional omission to reduce consideration for my candidacy. Later I’ll tell you why I think it was done.
One thing is clear — if my memory is correct (I’ve got the stuff buried away somewhere), this was an incredibly poorly done survey — remarkably unprofessional for a supposedly professional firm. The ONLY thing most people knew about many of the candidates at the start of this hectic race was the title Raul put as a short description of each candidate. In my opinion, Raul knew full well what he was doing, omitting any title for me in the survey.