CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 24, 2013 08:04 AM UTC

Denver Post Helps Partisan Pollsters Fool You

  • 27 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The Denver Post's Kevin Simpson reports on a new poll from GOP-aligned polling firm Magellan Strategies. Not surprisingly, this poll shows this year's school finance initiative, Amendment 66, in "serious trouble."

A survey by Louisville-based Magellan Strategies found that only 7 percent of 600 likely voters said they were "extremely informed" about the proposed amendment, which would revise the way education funds are parceled out to school districts and put more money toward expanded kindergarten, preschool, at-risk students and English-language learners.

Focusing on the tax ramifications, which would provide for a two-step state income tax increase, the poll asked two questions. First, it asked one with minimal information about the amendment and then a second question with more detailed information about the proposed new tax structure.

To the general question, 44 percent indicated they would oppose the measure, compared with 38 percent in support and 18 percent undecided.

The margin against the measure widened with the more detailed question, as 52 percent said they opposed it to 38 percent in support and 10 percent undecided. [Pols emphasis]

Sounds pretty bad for the school finance initiative, doesn't it? That's in large part because the Post didn't tell its readers anything about who made this poll, or what it actually asked in the way of questions. For that rather vital part of the story, we must turn to FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

[T]he results themselves aren’t quite as clear as Coloradans for Real Education Reform, the group that paid for the poll, argue.

First off, the party weighting for this survey is set to 39% Republican, 34% Democrat and 27% unaffiliated — Magellan calls it a “good projection of 2013 turnout demographics”, and it may well be.

Initially, when respondents were asked about Amendment 66 without being told more about what it does, the initiative is losing by a 52-33 percent margin with men.

But, women supported it by a 42-37 percent margin and Hispanics favored it by a 53-34 percent margin…

As Stokols takes the time to explain where the Post didn't, this poll was more or less engineered to produce the result sought by opponents of Amendment 66. Magellan claims that once voters become "informed" about the initiative, support for Amendment 66 drops across the board–but the "additional information" given in this poll says nothing about what the money would be spent on. Not even that it's an education initiative at all! Naturally, if your "additional information" consists solely of how much more people will pay, without including anything about what they're paying for, it's not going to be received very favorably. Proponents understand that their success depends on what voters will get for their money, where opponents naturally only want to talk about the cost.

Kudos to Eli Stokols for asking the very basic questions that dramatically change the story of this poll. Magellan Strategies, for context, also predicted that Ryan Frazier would defeat Ed Perlmutter in 2010, and Magellan CEO David Flaherty even predicted that year that Tom Tancredo "will become Colorado's next governor." Safe to say, their track record is mixed at best.

We'll leave it to readers to puzzle out why the Denver Post didn't tell you that.

Tweet
Share

Comments

27 thoughts on “Denver Post Helps Partisan Pollsters Fool You”

  1. Magellan's principal also has a firm called Elkhurst Communications that does terribly transperant push-polling, including for Bill Koch/Oxbow/Gunnison Energy.  Elokhurst push-pollsa re so bad as to be laughable, although they probably work with some teriibkly low-info voters, aka the GOP base in Colorado.  Their own description of themselves at mhttp://elkhurstcomm.com/  pretty much speaks for the quality of the product…

    Elkhurst Communications is a data collection company that gathers information from surveys. We interview consumers and inviduals on behalf of resarch firms, businesses and organizations.  (sic)

  3. Why? Because the Post under Chuck Plunkett has become a partisan propaganda sheet, that's why. Please stop calling it the "liberal Denver Post," notwithstanding the editorial board they have not been "liberal," or even fair to liberals, in some years. You bet your ass Plunkett is personally opposed to Amendment 66, and he's going to prove it over and over again.

    1. If you believe The Denver Post does not present a liberal bent, then there really is no hope for you.  

      I bet you think MSNBC is radically right as well?

      Wait, wait, this just in …………..  George Soros is a capitalist and an extreme right wing radical.   

        1. From the few stories I've seen, Al Jazeera tends to do a better job on a day-to-day basis at actual news than most of this country's supposed news outlets. Most US news services are either too much stenography and not enough reporting, or can't keep their editorials separate from their news. And yes, that goes for MSNBC as much as it does FOX – they're both in the business of wrapping some news in a bunch of opinion. Maddow at least used to be a great fact-checker (don't know about now), but her show on MSNBC has some pretty hard-hitting opinion that isn't really "news" as I'd like to see it.

      2. Um – newsflash. George Soros is a capitalist – his money comes from market investments which even the most ardent economic libertarians would consider "capitalism". As a funder of capitalist regime change in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, he is also probably responsible for more people in this world being capitalist than any other single modern figure…

        Time to step beyond the demonization to the reality.

        1. George Soros is an unapologetic communist and a socialist. The fact that he makes money in a capitalistic society does not make him a capitalist, but rather a hypocrite.  

          1. Soros spent a lot of his money helping The People to overthrow Communist regimes; to call him a Communist is belittling to the experience he had growing up as a Jewish person under Soviet style Communist rule.

            As for Socialism – well, I suppose if you accept the fact that our country is Socialist because we have a somewhat centralized bank, postal service, public roads, etc. then yes, Soros is a Socialist. But if you believe that Socialism is some vaguely defined spot on a scale ranging from Communism to economic Libertarianism, he's somewhere to the right of that vague spot – in fact, probably somewhere to the right of center.

            Quick hit: name 3 things George Soros has done.

            1. 1.  Attempts to influence voting:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/23/section-527-works-to-seat-liberals-as-election-ove/

              2.  Is this "right of center" enough?  http://www.trevorloudon.com/2011/04/is-george-soros-a-communist-agent/

              3.  He almost single handedly funds moveon.org and the dailyKOS.  Need I elaborate?  

              4.  Too radical for you?  http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2012/02/20/the-real-george-soros-an-evil-despicable-excuse-for-a-human-being-no-wonder-the-libs-love-the-pos/

              5.  Don't like these sources?  there are hundreds of others.  http://www.humanevents.com/2011/04/02/top-10-reasons-george-soros-is-dangerous/

              I know you said three.  I just couldn't help myself.  

            1. Human Events and Washington Times

              I like the wackadoodle NZ site especially.  What's this mean:

              I’m a Christian, which simply means that I have put my trust in Jesus Christ who died for me, and I’ll see Him one day. I’m a pro-life libertarian which means that I believe in freedom with responsibility – this excludes the killing of pre-born children.

              Jon Stewart on the (GOTP version of) The Sermon on the Mount:

              Consider the lilies of the field, they toil not, so go F yourselves

               

  6. Denver Post was more liberal in editorial policy than the Rocky, but often RMN would cover stories that the Post wouldn't. Having completing news dailies in town kept them both more honest.

    As the kid of a Denver Post "newspaperman", I only want to see newspapers continue to exist in some form.  Catering to the most extreme right wing readers doesn't seem like a good long term survival strategy.

    1. I agree completely. Especially after the floods, this is the wrong time to give schools a handout. They are several steps back in line now.

      I might vote for a limited temporary tax to recover from this disaster, but the billion dollar tax hike for teacher's unions is DOA.

      1. "handout"

        Is there any public investmetn you would nto consider a "handout"?

        Just curious.  And I vote no to rebuild flood damaged infrastructure unless we're going to commit to maintain and rebuild all of it.  This gov't by disaster and reaction is a poor substitute for foresight and leadership.

  8. Probably right but that doesn't make Magellan Strategies, whose polls "predicted" results as unlikely and counter to poll averages at the time as a Tancredo win and a Perlmutter loss, a credible operation. The Post ought to know that and shouldn't be fine with it. Good for Stokols for pointing that out. 

  10. Hey everyone – I hope you're all well!

    First off – I miss you all! Life is awesome in California and everything is going good for me. I always appreciate all well wishes.

    Second – I had to log on and defend my boys at Magellan, specifically David Flaherty. A few points –

    1. REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT – In 2008, I was blackballed by many GOP 'establishment' groups. This was mainly because of the legal trouble I ran into in the spring of 2008 (of which, I was later cleared of all accusations), as well as my rather abrasive personality (what can I say? Republican kingmakers don't like to be disagreed with). However, I feel like those were excuses used by 'kingmakers' and 'establishment' types, because a bigger reason why I was blackballed was because I was pro-gay-marriage, pro-immigrant/amnesty, and had non-white skin. I can't prove all of this, and I am openly admitting that these are my own suspcisions. The only Republican 'consultant' willing to work with me in the Spring of 2008 was David Flaherty. He never answered to any of the 'establishment' types. As a matter of fact, Magellan solicited many calls to drop me as a client in 2010, when the 'establishment' pick in the GOP State Treasurers race was not me. David Flaherty held firm. Despite continued threats of blackballing, Magellan has always stuck by me, in 2008 and 2010. What I love most about Magellan and David Flaherty? The 'establishment' has to BEG to work with HIM. And everyone in the Colorado GOP knows that no one in the state does better polling than David Flaherty (which is why he is still so popular today, despite telling the 'establishment' to engage in 'coitus' with themselves). With all that said, he still remains the most humble and nicest professional in the world.

    2. QUALITY OF POLLING – David Flaherty a bad record? Hardly. Throughout 2010 and 2012, Magellan was consistently rated as one of the most accurate polling firms in America (some even said it was the most accurate outfit). I don't have the webpages with me, but Magellan beat out most (if not all) of the bigdogs in 2010 and 2012. Granted, they were wrong about some results, but no one is 100% accurate.

    3. POLLING SCIENCE – True, Magellan did include more Republicans in their current sample, but in this 2013 special election, more Republicans are expected to show up for the vote (2013 recall elections, anyone?). Part of polling is applying analytical science, in terms of predicting what the voting populace will look like. Magellan could be wrong, but under their professional analysis, Amendment 66 is not looking strong.

    With all that said, perhaps we need to have a discussion about why 66 could fail, rather than assissinating another firm's credibility? I joined the Democratic Party because I yearned to be a member of a Party that appreciated the intellectual process of solving problems, rather than the character assassination I consistently saw peddled by Republicans.

    Take it from one former Republican – we don't want to become a Party that dismisses fair analysis, just because it disagrees with ours. From a loyal Democrat –

    I LOVE YOU ALL! – Miguel Ali

    1. Hey, there! Long time no see…

      Magellan doesn't rank on the national poll accuracy list in 2012 as far as I can tell – didn't make the Fordham University study or Nate Silver's list. They just don't do enough polling nationally to rate a ranking.

      And Magellan is highly tied to Republican operations; back in 2010 their slogan was "Helping Republicans Win Elections", and they've been criticized for poor sampling methods before. In addition to their not-even-close Tancredo prediction, they also mis-called the Maryland O'Malley vs. Ehrlich matchup pretty badly (they had a poll showing Ehrlich in the lead; on election day Ehrlich lost by 15 points…).

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

197 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!