Blog

WASHINGTON—WPA Intelligence, a leading conservative polling and data analytics firm announces the hiring of Hilary Bombard Resta to head the firm’s digital department.

Hilary brings years of digital experience and expertise as well as political acumen to the team. Before joining WPAi, she served as Deputy Digital Director for Texans for Greg Abbott. Resta oversaw an ad budget of $12 million, as well as content creation and campaign messaging.

Prior to joining Abbott’s team, she worked for leading digital firm Targeted Victory where she managed the strategic online advertising and communications plans for multiple statewide initiatives and Gubernatorial campaigns. Resta also served as the Email Marketing Manager for Mitt Romney’s presidential race in 2012.

Resta’s position expands WPAi’s suite of services, providing clients with a comprehensive solution that pairs expert opinion research and data analytics with digital strategy and execution.

As Senior Digital Strategist, Resta will lead the firm’s digital department by integrating the digital implementation of WPAi’s data into client strategy. This growth allows WPAi to offer an end-to-end solution to their clients by driving outcomes with the right messages, identifying the right audiences, and helping campaigns and existing digital vendors deliver highly targeted digital advertising using an integrated, complete solution consisting of opinion research and data analytics.

“Our digital strategy and advertising practice will leverage WPAi’s sophisticated audiences and messaging into highly targeted digital advertising campaigns,” said WPA CEO Chris Wilson. “With WPAi, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. While there are firms that specialize in opinion research, data analytics, or digital strategy, there are few other firms in Republican politics that can offer all three under one roof.”

About WPAi

Since 1998, WPA Intelligence has been a leading provider of survey research, predictive analytics and technology for corporations, educational institutions, public affairs programs, non-profits and campaigns from President to Governor, U.S. Senate, and local elections in all 50 states and multiple foreign countries.  In the 2017-2018 cycle, WPAi’s polling and data plotted the course for multiple winning Senate, Governor’s races and House campaigns.

WPAi’s data and analytics continue to lead the industry. In the 2016 Republican primary for president, arguably the most unprecedented presidential contest by way of turnout and political environment volatility, WPAi accurately projected turnout and the ballot score in 42 states through the use of advanced, predictive analytics. In 2018 our predictive analytics tools were a key element of the RNC Voter Scores program and predicted the margins in numerous races with unmatched accuracy.

WPAi has been nationally recognized for providing cutting edge intelligence to help our clients win. The American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC) awarded WPAi “Pollies” for our Predictive Analytics and Adaptive Sampling techniques and our groundbreaking data-focused social media application “Leonardo.” In addition, WPAi received a “Reed Award” for building the most expansive, optimized field program in GOP politics on behalf of Abbott for Governor in 2018.

Learn more about WPAi Digital

These findings were originally published on the Oklahoma Council Public Affairs Website

Written by: Brandon Dutcher, Senior Vice President OCPA
The statewide survey of 500 registered Oklahoma voters was commissioned by OCPA and conducted by WPA Intelligence  from January 29 to January 31, 2019. The margin of error is ±4.4 percent.

[imge_br placeholder=”null”]

Yet another scientific survey of Oklahoma voters has found strong support for educational choice.

The statewide survey of 500 registered Oklahoma voters was commissioned by OCPA and conducted by WPA Intelligence from January 29 to January 31, 2019. The margin of error is ±4.4 percent. Below are the questions related to parental choice:

“If you could select any type of school in order to obtain the best education for your child or children, and financial costs and transportation were of no concern, what type of school would you select?”

Traditional public school … 46%
Charter school … 9%
Private or parochial school … 34%
Home school … 7%
Don’t know/refused … 4%

“Now I am going to read you a current educational choice program available for certain demographics in Oklahoma. After I read the program, please indicate if you would support or oppose the program being expanded to include any of the following demographics. The current program makes private-school scholarships available to special-needs students, foster children, and children adopted out of state custody.”

“Do you support or oppose expanding eligibility to children of incarcerated parents?”

Strongly support … 52%
Somewhat support … 24%
TOTAL SUPPORT … 76%

Somewhat oppose … 10%
Strongly oppose … 10%
TOTAL OPPOSE … 20%

Don’t know/refused … 5%

“Do you support or oppose expanding eligibility to homeless students?”

Strongly support … 65%
Somewhat support … 17%
TOTAL SUPPORT … 82%

Somewhat oppose … 6%
Strongly oppose … 8%
TOTAL OPPOSE … 14%

Don’t know/refused … 4%

“A proposal has been made to create an educational choice program in Oklahoma which provides private-school scholarships to public-school students who are bullied or are victims of violence. Would you support or oppose this proposal?”

Strongly support … 45%
Somewhat support … 19%
TOTAL SUPPORT … 64%

Somewhat oppose … 11%
Strongly oppose … 18%
TOTAL OPPOSE … 29%

Don’t know/refused … 6%

“A proposal has been made to enact an individual tax credit for approved educational expenses. Oklahoma parents could receive a state tax credit of up to $2,500 per child for public-school expenses such as costs for band instruments and uniforms, athletic equipment, and other public-school activities. Or, they could receive the tax credit for costs associated with private school tuition or homeschooling. Would you support or oppose this proposal?”

Strongly support … 42%
Somewhat support … 22%
TOTAL SUPPORT … 64%

Somewhat oppose … 11%
Strongly oppose … 17%
TOTAL OPPOSE … 28%

Don’t know/refused … 8%

This survey is the latest among many over the past five years which have measured Oklahomans’ views on parental choice in education. Here is the other survey research that has shown support for various forms of private-school choice:

Braun Research survey (registered Oklahoma voters), January 2014
Tarrance Group survey (registered Oklahoma GOP primary voters), July 2014
SoonerPoll survey (likely Oklahoma voters), January 2015
Tarrance Group survey (registered Oklahoma voters), January 2015
Cole Hargrave Snodgrass and Associates survey (registered Oklahoma voters), December 2015
SoonerPoll survey (likely Oklahoma voters), January 2016
SoonerPoll survey (likely Oklahoma voters), July 2016
Cor Strategies survey (likely Oklahoma voters), August 2017
Cor Strategies survey (likely Oklahoma voters), May 2018
And here is the survey research showing that Oklahomans oppose school vouchers (the survey didn’t ask about tax credits or education savings accounts):

Public Opinion Strategies survey (likely Oklahoma voters), March 2015

On election night, something amazing happened.

Outside of a few specialists who study such things, America probably hasn’t come to fully understand how remarkable, and rare, this year’s mid-term elections really were.

Based on data compiled by the brilliant Michael McDonald at the University of Florida, turnout among voting eligible Americans (that is citizens aged 18+, excluding felons who have not had their voting rights restored) is AT LEAST48.5% with some additional remaining ballots unknown (due to counties not releasing how many uncounted ballots they have — and we’re looking at you Broward County, Florida — as well as states where mail ballots merely need to be post marked by Election Day).

The chart below shows turnout rate for every mid-term since 1914. To put this into historical perspective, we have not seen turnout levels for a midterm this high in more than half a century.

We’re now likely to exceed the 1966 mark. That would clearly be a modern record for mid-term turnout. To find a higher mark, you have to go all the way back to 1914, where turnout was 50.4%. We may not get there, but even if we don’t it means we’ve just had a mid-term election with turnout at levels not reached since the early part of the last century. Quite literally a “100-year flood.”

What’s more, some places exceeded their total turnout from the last Presidential race.

Travis County, Texas, for example, which is by far the most liberal major county in the state and includes the University of Texas, cast at least 25,000 more votes this cycle than it did in 2016. Once all of the votes are tallied, it won’t be the only example of turnout in a mid-term exceeding the previous Presidential race. And that’s almost unheard of.

Why was turnout so high?

We’ll probably need to leave it to years of political science research to fully explain why 2018 was such an outlier compared to not just recent, but also distant, history. But, a few explanations are clear from the start.

This election became a referendum on a first term president in a way few mid-terms have in the past. The opposition party almost always has enthusiasm and turns out a lot of votes, but a massive increase in political tribalism magnified that effect.

On the other hand, the President’s party usually sees its turnout ebb, but this year we saw Republican turnout grow and grow, keeping pace with Democrats’ for the most part. President Trump’s ceaseless campaigning was a big part of that-credit where credit is due.

Both 1966 and 2018 also happened against a background of social unrest and upheaval coupled with strong economies. In 1966, the Vietnam War, Civil Rights, and the social pressures that would explode in the late 60s and early 70s were all at the forefront while the economy was humming along with unemployment down to 4%.

2018, too, came with a roaring economy — 3.7% unemployment on October 1, but with an upsurge in protests, demonstrations, and political violence on both sides.

Technology also likely played a role in the surge in turnout this year as both sides increasingly adopted new modes of political communication, incorporating peer-to-peer texting and internalizing the lessons of political science experiments from the last several years with tools like social pressure for turnout efforts.

As pollsters and political data analysts, the real question we have is what comes next?

Accounting for a Black Swan scenario is always a challenge, in part, because a model that would predict a 1-in-100 outcome is going to be wrong most of the time. But, as we look ahead to the 2020 Presidential election and the 2022 mid-terms, we have to ask ourselves what 2018 and history tell us as a starting point to understanding how coming races may evolve.

Even though we may be headed for a 1914 level of turnout, it’s probably a bad comparison to use. In 1914, turnout had dropped in four of the previous five mid-terms. So, 1914 stands as a record only because turnout fell off of a cliff in 1918 and never really reached late-19th/early 20th Century levels again.

The picture in 1966 might prove more instructive. The graph above shows that mid-term turnout moved up in the 60s, spiked in 1966, then held on for one more midterm before dropping precipitously in the 1970s and not really recovering until this year.

The picture in presidential years is similar — turnout was fairly normal for the period in 1964 and in 1968 (both were between 62% and 63% of the eligible population) before dropping into the 50s in 1972 and not really recovering until 2004. From 2004 to 2016, presidential year turnout has remained fairly stable in the low 60s, with a slight uptick in 2004 and a slight drop in 2012.

The typical mode of modeling turnout is to start from vote history and demography and then move to the instrument for changes in interest, intent to turnout, and other factors. These models perform really well when turnout holds within a “normal” range for its historical period — in other words they’ve been quite good for much of the 21st century, for as long as data and technology have allowed us to build them.

But, they don’t really account for the kind of epochal changes that defined a 1914, a 1966, to some extent a 2004, or now a 2018.

So, for the modeler, the question is how we can understand the broader social and historical context to try to predict whether 2020 and 2022 will continue the surge in turnout? Will they be like the 2004 election which was the first in a series of presidential elections with elevated turnout (though the six-point increase from 2000 to 2004 pales in comparison with the size of the shift that happened this year), or will they be like 1966 — a singular surge that quickly digressed to trending downward.

One approach we will explore is if we can build a fundamentals model that controls for the economy, political polarization, measures of social unrest, and other variables that would fit the macro-shifts over time and then include this macro effect in our individual voter estimates.

What history is telling us is that we’ve just experienced the rarest of rare elections. Off the edge of the map is a scary place to be, but it’s also an exciting opportunity to learn something new about how elections unfold.

Everything is bigger in Texas: from the critters that roam to the size of the barbecue Texans eat. And we can of course add egregious polling errors to the list.

Later this week, Wednesday to be exact, the Texas Lyceum will release polling on the big four races in Texas (Senate, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General).

Let’s take a trip down memory lane to see just how bad this poll has been. Dating back to 2008 the Texas Lyceum has generously given Democrats a massive house effect boost of seven (7!!!) points.

Let’s dig a bit further as to why they give Democrats such a big boost.

Look no further than their samples as they interview 1,000 adults. But, of course, all adults don’t vote. Likely voters do. But Lyceum interviewing adults leads to independents ranging from 12% to 46% (that’s not a typo — yes, forty-six percent). And Democrats varying from twenty-eight percent (28%) to forty-four (44%) percent. Finally, Republicans have ranged from twenty-three (23%) to forty-four (44%) percent. Pretty radical variance no matter how you estimate party ID in the Lone Star State.

Why stress this? Historically, Lyceum toplines offer very little information and most of their data is buried deep within the crosstabs, which they historically don’t release until after they drop the toplines. While they report the party mix of their adult sample, they don’t consistently report the breakdown of the people who actually responded to the ballot until sometimes days later.

Want another Texas sized error? The Texas Lyceum drastically overestimates the share of Hispanic voters in the Lone Star state. This of course has the impact of decreasing the white vote share under 50%.

Even other polls criticized for how they weight each party know that more than half of voters in Texas are white. Even the Democrat biased UT/Texas Tribune poll from June had the white vote share at 58%.

Given recent public polling and the Lyceum house bias, I expect they show the following: Governor Abbott around +12, LG Patrick and AG Paxton both in a dead heat and Senator Cruz around+3. We’ll see if I’m correct, but if I am, as is likey, I could have saved them thousands!

For anyone interested in reviewing Lyceum past surveys, here are convenient links:

April 3–9, 2017
Results
Cross tabs

September 1–11, 2016
Results
Cross tabs

September 8–21, 2015
Results
Cross tabs

September 11–25, 2014
Results
Cross tabs

September 6–20, 2013
Results
Cross tabs

September 10–26, 2012
Results
Cross tabs

May 24–31, 2011
Results
Cross tabs

September 20–30, 2010
Results
Cross tabs

June 5–12, 2009
Results
Cross tabs

June 12–20, 2008
Results
Cross tabs

April 26-May 7, 2007
Results
Multiple cross tabs for 2007:
Number 1
Number 2
Number 3
Number 4
Number 5
Number 6
Number 7