Friday, November 02, 2007

Hot Poll Numbers. Get em while they're hot.. Extra insights from a weird third voice as a topping.

Luke is at 63%.
DeSantis is at 21%.
Libertarian, Tony Oliva is at 3%.
Ryan Scott, Socialist Workers Party, is at 1%.

Unsure is 11%.
Not telling, or mind your own business, = 7%.

The 11+7 = 18%. That was the topic for a recent email blast and blog post. It could have read 38% to 11% for even extra contrast. Seven percent know who they are going to vote for, they just are not telling.

In the two person race for Pgh Controller:
Michael Lamb, D, is at 52%.
Mark Rauterkus, Libertarian, is at 10%.
Unsure is at 38%.

If all the unsure break to Rauterkus, the race would be nearly tied.

I predict that Ravenstahl will be at 63 to 65% of the vote total.
Understand that DeSantis started at nearly ZERO.

More people signed the petition to get Rauterkus and Oliva onto the ballot than voted with the write in to get DeSantis onto the GOP ballot.
The media has done a poor job in coverage of the Controller's race.
Rauterkus has spent less than $250 in his race. Meanwhile, DeSantis has spent $300,000.

Rauterkus is getting twice as many votes from those who are going to vote for DeSantis than Ravenstahl.

DeSantis held a fund raiser for Lamb when Lamb was in a race for Mayor in 2005.

When Rauterkus ran for mayor, in 2001, the intent was to create opposition to Tom Murphy. Meanwhile, Lamb ran against Bob O'Connor and finished third in the D-Party primary. Lamb's vote total was less than Bill Peduto's.

Lamb ran for Controller in the D-Pary primary in May, 2007, and got 41% of the D-Party vote.

Throughout Allegheny County, there are less than 2,500 Libertarians. In the city, the number is much less.

The city council candidates who are challenging the endorsed Democrats each have a better opportunity to win their respective races than does DeSantis. The Republican label is too much of a liability for DeSantis at this time.

The DeSantis campaign has failed to build even the slightest teamwork among the other challengers to Pittsburgh's status as a one-party town.

The hope of all hopes for a DeSantis victory must reside in the new voters to the city. Those that have not voted before or only voted for the first time in 2007 and 2006 were not able to be within the poll. The younger people in the South Side, the college students, the recent arrivals could sway the election to the favor of DeSantis.

Of course a high voter turnout among Republicans and a low turnout for Dems would guarantee a DeSantis victory.

I have not looked at results from various sections of the city and from various party households. DeSantis could have a massive Shadyside, Regent Square and Sq. Hill vote total. That might have been overlooked within this poll. DeSantis might have a massive voter boom in Overbrook or Brookline. There are mysteries that will not be known until the voters speak and results are calculated.

Ravenstahl could still make two or three mistakes.



Ha, ha, ha section..... as it is nice to have creativity when facing data. Plus, I'm going to a tailgate with Pitt folks in the morning. Hail to Pitt. I won't unleash the poisonous snakes then. (Have you seen their blog?)

If Luke Ravenstahl kicks the winning field goal in the Monday Night Steelers game, DeSantis should instruct the fat lady to being to sing.

If DeSantis could get all weekend tailgaters a crash course in civics along with a hot sandwich on a fresh bun, Luke would go down in flames.

If the Libertarian, Tony Oliva, would parachute into Heinz Field with the game ball and proceed to return the opening kickoff past the Ravenstahl, err, Ravens 50, then Michael Lamb might have to get his next government job in the Law Department since Rauterkus would be a hero for recruiting Oliva to the ballot.

Finally, don't shoot the messenger. However, I have good faith that this poll is the most comprehensive done in Pittsburgh since Bill Peduto pulled out of the mayor's race in March 2007.

Tomorrow, watch this blog for video of the lone debate between the candidates for controller hosted by B-Pep and the League of Women Voters. Michael Lamb mentions dog licenses, for the 724th time at a public meeting. In his remarks at the debate, Lamb repeated the word "audit" 412 times in less than 30-minutes.

Link to the audio will go here soon.

Link to the spreadsheet of data.



Script of recorded phone call:
A mayor's race is here in Pittsburgh.

Residents vote for two city-wide positions on Nov 6. Your help for the next 60-seconds can assist in a scientifically valid poll.

In the mayor's race, if you expect to vote for

Luke Ravenstahl, Democrat, press “1”

if you expect to vote for Mark DeSantis, Republican, press 2,

if you expect to vote for Tony Oliva, Libertarian, press 3,

Ryan Scott, Socialist, press 4.

if you are unsure as to who you'll vote for – press 5.

if you would rather NOT say who may vote for – register a privacy tally by pressing six.

- -
Last question:

In the race for city controller,

if you are going to vote for Michael Lamb, Democrat, press 7

if you are going to vote for Mark Rauterkus, Libertarian, press 8.

if you are unsure about who you'll vote for for City Controller, -- press 9.

-
Finally, if you would want to get voter information and obtain the results of this poll, press “O” for operator and leave a message that includes your email address. We'll release the results to you as soon as this poll concludes.


Extra Q & A:

How many respondents?
715 gave something to tally.
Thousands of calls were made.
And what was the breakdown -- how many said they'd vote for you, versus Lamb?
Lamb is at 52%, me 10%, Undecided 38%
Who conducted the poll?
Me.
Over what dates?
Most recent six days. But, I better triple check this in the AM. I stopped the poll at noon on Friday, Nov 2.
Robo or humans asking questions?
Recorded voice.

And what's the margin of error?
?? That's beyond my pay grade.

9 comments:

MH said...

Getting that many responses in 6 days is an impressive piece of work for an unfunded campaign. However, I'm curious to know just how many thousands were called to get your sample and, more importantly, where you got the numbers to call. Also, how many attempts were made at a given number and what times were the calls made.

Anyway, best of luck. I already voted for DeSantis in the primary and will vote for both of you on Tuesday. Michael Lamb personally asked for my vote as I walked into the primary. He looked a bit down when I showed him the Post-It I was carrying to be absolutely sure I spelled DeSantis correctly. It was very shortly after the polls opened and I must have been one of the first people he shook hands with that day.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Uh correct me if I am wrong, but other than uncounted absentees, no one has voted yet. So how could you, at this point, get more votes than Desantis?

Mark Rauterkus said...

Re-read the tense.

Will vote for me and did vote in the primary.

Mark Rauterkus said...

I've not counted all the calls in the logs yet to see how many total calls were placed.

Perhaps as many or more than as there are dead people still on the voter rolls in the county, 9,000.

Generally, I try to call a number 3 times before giving up or leaving a message.

The numbers (lists) were obtained from a service in Washington D.C. A vendor of such data. It links voters with other sources of data.

Anonymous said...

i don't see a question in your survey concerning whether people are even planning to vote. just like there's a difference between likely voters and registered voters, that might be important for the ultimate accuracy of these results

Mark Rauterkus said...

I only called households with voters. And, the list was refined once with another question about if you plan on voting -- with a judge retention question / poll.

Those that won't vote hang up, generally.

The Bag of Health and Politics said...

Good work. Thanks for doing it. However, calling registered voters certainly biased it towards Luke. If you call Democrat X up and say "Who Are You Voting For," they'll say the Democratic nominee. But there's a 5-1 chance that they don't show up at all in an off-year election. Among people that closely follow the election--in other words the people that are likely to vote--Luke's support is lower. I've heard mumblings that polls show it's within the margin of error (+/- 5%), which would explain the negative stuff out of the Luke camp, which otherwise makes zero sense for a front-runner. I think there's a 2 in 3 chance that it'll be between 55-45 either way...

Mark Rauterkus said...

All voters are registered voters. Those that vote decide who wins the election.

If Luke's support is soft, and I have no doubt that it is, then Lamb's support is a pillow.

You never know.

I hope one party rule gets broken. I hope new teams are formed. You win by addition.

Sadly, DeSantis has been a lone wolf. That has been a disappointment.

MH said...

Deciding who to include in a survey as a "likely voter" is a source of continuing controversy. And predicting turn-out in local elections is even harder. I checked the forecast for Tuesday and it is supposed to be cold and rainy. That usually hurts turn-out, except among the dead.