New Poll Raises More Questions Than Answers

A new poll purports to have predicted the vote in Austin’s Place 4 city council runoff five days before the election even though the firm didn’t release the results until this week, days after the actual voting took place.

Further undermining the pollster’s case is his misstatement of the margin of error in a different survey in a Corpus Christi state House race. That survey’s margin of error should be 4.1 percent for a 560 sample size, not the 4.7 percent claimed on the firm’s website and in a news release.

Texas Poll Watch is run by a political consultant who was embroiled in controversy when he was accused of faking signatures on a Hays County petition. This week, the firm is touting a telephone survey conducted in House District 32 that finds the Democratic incumbent trailing a Republican challenger in a race considered one of the top legislative contests this cycle.

The pollster didn’t disclose what percent of the sample came from each county and how that matches projected turnout, what percent is male or female against projected turnout, what percent is Hispanic or non-Hispanic (particularly important in a race between a Hispanic and an Anglo), and what percent of the respondents identify themselves as Democratic, Republican, or Independent. Such details are critical for the media and voters to determine the legitimacy of polls at a time when low-cost interactive phone technology puts “polling” within reach of almost anyone regardless of their training.

Also suspect, is the newest poll revealing that Bush’s approval rating is higher than both cheese and television.

Posted on June 17, 2008 – 2:55 pm by APR

  1. 18 Responses to “New Poll Raises More Questions Than Answers”

  2. Has Mark Littlefield started running a polling firm from prison?

    This is the same guy that Patrick Rose fired because of unethical business practices. Get your head around that one.

    By Todd Turner on Jun 17, 2008

  3. This is a great post. I learned a lot about polling and also to ignore this particular phone survey if Mark Littlefield had anything to do with it.

    By Macginnis on Jun 17, 2008

  4. Where to begin…

    First, our polls are both statistically valid and are unbiased - they only state the facts, as collected.

    Second; unlike the people behing APR, we are 100% transparent about who we are - just look at our FAQ section - we are not hiding!

    Third, you did not request permission to use our intellectual property as content for your site.

    Finally, say what you will, make whatever accusations you like. I can take that, but I do ask - what are the true intentions of this article - to report unbiased facts as expected from a news source, or is it an attempt to smear a potential competitor?

    I stake my name and reputation with TXPollWatch.com and I believe that it is time for people in this community to have an unbiased, non-agenda-driven source for the news and the facts. I challenge you to be so transparent and forthcoming!

    Sincerely,
    Ben Littlefield

    By Ben Littlefield on Jun 17, 2008

  5. Who puts out an election poll after the election has taken place and then claims that they predicted the outcome? This poll is not just bogus, it is insulting.

    By Macginnis on Jun 18, 2008

  6. Mac, do you know what is truly insulting and abhorrent? APR making stuff up!

    I don’t normally care, but it seems you have some things wrong. The city poll was released before the runoff. I know, because I saw it last week on the poll watch site. You can even see the date it was posted.

    Perhaps you were a little quick to smash these guys when you just didn’t read the article until after the fact.

    By RichieT on Jun 18, 2008

  7. Ben, don’t you have to HAVE a name and reputation to stake it.

    Just saying buddy….

    By Whosit on Jun 18, 2008

  8. In the interest of being 100% transparent, Ben, would you like to enlighten us as to the details of the criminal pleading your business partner made one WEEK ago in San Marcos regarding ELECTION FRAUD?

    You can’t be serious about this.

    By Todd Turner on Jun 18, 2008

  9. There is a lot of mudslinging going on in here. I happen to know some of the people involved in this and it boils down to this: those who run this site ,as many know, have interests that are put in a corner by this poll. Sorry guys, but just because it isn’t the news you want doesn’t make it not true! Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and run your own damn poll!

    By Mr. S on Jun 18, 2008

  10. I don’t run this site and have nothing to do with this bogus poll. But it seems pretty simple. Someone who got caught faking election petitions shouldn’t be surprised when people don’t take his election polls seriously.

    By Macginnis on Jun 18, 2008

  11. What about the City poll? It was dead on - and it was completed before the election, not after!

    By Mr. S on Jun 18, 2008

  12. I want someone to explain how Mark Littlefield–who was not a pollster before he plead GUILTY to PERPETRATING ELECTION FRAUD–has crawled out from underneath his rock to re-emerge as…a pollster. You have to have at least an iota of credibility to be a pollster. Mark Littlefield does not have that. He’s lucky he’s not wearing stripes right now.

    And to Mr. S’ point, you don’t think that Mark Littlefield might have some of his own axes to grind here? I can’t wait for him to poll Patrick Rose’s district!

    By Todd Turner on Jun 18, 2008

  13. So, you don’t have a problem with the fact that APR is straight out lying? Nor, do you admit that the recent city poll was accurate, which it was. What point are you trying to make? Or, is this just a personal attack? I question your integrity, Todd.

    By Mr. S on Jun 18, 2008

  14. I’m not quite clear what APR is alleged to have made up. They assert that the margin of error was miscalculated and that the sample is screwed up. Those seem like logical points to me. But I’m not a pollster and I don’t seek to validate those claims.
    The city poll is a non-issue as far as I’m concerned. That’s like saying, I got an “A” in my English class, therefore I have a 4.0 in school. That’s not logical.

    The issue here is that Mark Littlefield is not a credible individual. He wasn’t before he committed ELECTION FRAUD and he’s certainly not now.

    He’s been fired by the last two candidates that he worked for for engaging in unethical business practices and he works for Wal-Mart now as a political consultant. Wal-Mart!

    Bottom line: The guy is a sleazeball. And I know it’s easy to be dismissive of ad hominem attacks (which are also being made against the author of this site, I would point out), but in this case, we have a person–Mark Littlefield–that’s so lacking in personal credibility that he simply shouldn’t be reported on as a credible source. His political rebirth as a free-lancing pollster is a sad joke. I’m dying to hear someone logically refute this point as untrue.

    By Todd Turner on Jun 18, 2008

  15. Wow! Sounds like someone has a Napoleonic complex, Todd.

    Re-read what you wrote and tell us that is not a personal attack in defense of an article that is clearly inaccurate, libel, and downright BS!

    By Friend of S on Jun 18, 2008

  16. I am definitely making a personal attack on Mark Littlefield. I called him a “sleazeball” in my last comment. He’s a felon that was fired from his last two jobs because of his being a “sleazeball.”

    What I seek to understand is how anyone can dispute that fact. It seems that no one can. Because of that, I totally reject his credibility.

    And, again, I have no idea what part of this article you are alleging to be inaccurate.

    By Todd Turner on Jun 19, 2008

  17. todd’s right. i don’t see anyone actually arguing with what he says.

    By Mr. Awesome on Jun 19, 2008

  18. Texas Poll Watch Numbers Wrong
    http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6081

    By Macginnis on Jun 19, 2008

  19. Mark Littlefield did indeed plead guilty. I wonder if the conditions of his probation allow him to work as a consultant???

    By Lynn on Aug 24, 2008

Post a Comment