Punditology 2006: picking the winners in the Oregon primary election
So, each year 'round this time, we run a little no-money betting pool among the consultants, journalists, candidates, campaign staff, lobbyists, and hacks. Pick the winners of the big races and some obscure races, and your name goes up in lights.
WINNERS
The 2006 Punditology Challenge (Oregon Primary Edition) has come and gone, and here's the results:
Metro Councilor Brian Newman - who was re-elected without opposition last night - scored top marks, getting 23 out of 25 correct. The only ones he missed? Brian picked last-place finisher Chuck Butcher for the Second CD, and thought Saltzman/Fritz would go to a run-off. He didn't need the tiebreaker, but Brian also got the top three in order correctly in HD46.
We had a big five-way tie for second place - with 20 of 25 correct - including 1000 Friends staff planner Dan Eisenbeis, legislative staffer Mike Reiley, Bus Project activist and Our Oregon intern Jonathan Pulvers, campaign staffer Mike Linman, and State Senator Ryan Deckert. Eisenbeis and Linman got the top three in order correctly in HD46 to nose out the others.
[Correction: While Jonathan Pulvers is definitely on the Bus, he picked up all the tips he needed to nail 20 of 25 at his current internship at Our Oregon. That doesn't explain the lackluster performance of the other folks in that office, but we digress...]
[Correction on the Correction: With four entries, all with 17 or better picks, the excellent and brilliant staff of Our Oregon were clearly the finest group of punditologists seen in these parts since gosh I don't know when. (OK, Patty and Kevin, how's that for a gushing retraction?)]
The Top 60 participants (out of 232) are... drum roll please...
(23 out of 25) Brian Newman
(20) Daniel Eisenbeis
(20) Jonathan Pulvers
(20) Mike Reiley
(20) Mike Linman
(20) Ryan Deckert
(19) Amy Jenniges
(19) Christopher Nicholson
(19) Ed Dennis
(19) Ernie Delmazzo
(19) Josh Berezin
(19) Kari Chisholm
(19) Tom Powers
(18) Christina Smith
(18) Elizabeth Hammond
(18) Fred Segrest
(18) Jeff Cogen
(18) Joel Shapiro
(18) Larry Galizio
(18) Mara Gros
(18) Nate Currie
(18) Randy Tucker
(18) Suzanne Bonamici
(18) Tim Nesbitt
(17) Becca Uherbelau
(17) Bob Stacey
(17) Dave Hunt
(17) Gary Corbin
(17) Jeannie Berg
(17) Jeff Alworth
(17) Jesse Cornett
(17) Jeston Black
(17) Joe Keizur
(17) John Mulvey
(17) Jon Pugsley
(17) Kevin Looper
(17) Matt Grumm
(17) Nick Fish
(17) Tim Crail
(16) Alan Fleischman
(16) Barbara Smith Warner
(16) Christy Splitt
(16) David Moskowitz
(16) David Jarvis
(16) Deborah Kafoury
(16) Gabe Kjos
(16) Jake Oken-Berg
(16) Jefferson Smith
(16) Jill Thorn
(16) Joel Fowlks
(16) Justin Thiltgen
(16) Katherine Pfeiffer
(16) Katy Daily
(16) Ken Ray
(16) Mac Prichard
(16) Mike Riley
(16) Pat Mobley
(16) Phil Donovan
(16) Tom Wolf
(16) Willie Smith
To protect the innocent (and wrong) we won't post the names of the rest - but let's just say that quite a few elected officials and bigtime journalists and consultants just don't know their Oregon politics.
OUR COLLECTIVE WISDOM
As always, we were mostly right. Except when we were really wrong. The consensus got 17 of 25 right -- with 6 of the 8 wrong picks in the local races. You can see the full collective wisdom here.
- 80% of us picked Jesse Cornett to win. (Oh, the agony.)
- 65% thought the Beaverton School Bond would pass, but it failed the double majority. (Trick question, I know.)
- 64% picked Anna Morrison to beat Bill Fleenor in the Lane County Commission race.
- 61% thought Steve March would best LaVonne Griffin-Valade.
- 61% thought Jim Randall would beat Laura Tesler in the Salem City Council race.
- 51% thought it would be a Sten/Burdick run-off, and 42% thought Sten would win outright.
- 40% picked a Cogen/Hansen run-off, and only 20% correctly picked a Cogen/Frederick run-off.
- 31% thought it would be a Hallman/Roberts run-off, and only 26% correctly picked the Linder/Roberts run-off. (Another 25% thought it would be Linder/Hallman.)
Kari Chisholm | May 18, 2006 | Comments (12) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Given my incredibly bad record with political predictions, I should retire now. I'll never do this well again. (And just to show that the Blue co-founders represented, we all managed to make the cut. Another reason I should retire--I'll drag us down in November. There WILL be a challenge in November?)
But enough of me, how about Brian Newman?!? Good lord, 23 of 25--that's spooky good. Kari, is that an all-time record?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 18, 2006 10:09:58 AM
Wow, this is more gratifying than my come from behind reelection win to the Metro Council. I am a bit shocked since I made blind guesses on a few downstate races. When in doubt, I went with the female candidate. Do I get a trophy or green sports jacket to wear until the November punditology challenge?
Posted by: Brian Newman | May 18, 2006 11:12:15 AM
Thank you Kari for the Punditology Challenge. I know it's a lot of work and I'm certain we're all grateful. I nominate Brian to be a consultant for determining which candidate's get the most money from Dem Party PACs.
Posted by: Ernie | May 18, 2006 11:17:37 AM
Our Oregon responds to defend its honor:
Lackluster performance, my fat puppy!
In addition to Jonathan, only two other Our Oregonians submitted Punditology entries and they both proved themselves superior pundits. Josh Berezin, tied with Kari Chisholm in prognosticating 19 races correctly and Kevin Looper was in the fifth-place showing. So all three OO's who played were in the top five. They represented their organization with honor and we're very proud.
We'll also claim as one of our Mr. Phil Donovan, the campaign manager against the Colorado Spending Trap (TABOR).
And to throw it down I'll ask, was any other organization as well represented? If so, we will shower them with laurels. If not, we will claim complete political domination.
Posted by: Patty Wentz, Our Oregon | May 18, 2006 12:52:50 PM
Thank you for creating some community and making this fun!
Next time include Susan's race.
Posted by: Ed Dennis | May 18, 2006 2:12:19 PM
We demand full transparency...release the WHOLE list of results, top to bottom, Kari. None of this top 60 stuff...what the hell is top 60 anyway? We all know you just went down to the Willie Smith line and published everything north of it, knowing that everyone below that line would pay you off to hide their shame.
And I for one am proud that Our Intern is the smartest one in Our Office at Our Oregon. That's why we pay him the big bucks.
Posted by: Kevin Looper | May 18, 2006 2:47:47 PM
Next time include Susan's race.
Yeah, right, that wasn't a hard pick.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 18, 2006 5:14:53 PM
OK, Wentz and Looper, I've posted a correction.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 18, 2006 5:28:59 PM
Kari,
Is it possible to get a various breakdowns of results in each category of participants?:
Candidate or Elected Official
Campaign Staffer
Political Consultant
Lobbyist/Interest Group Staffer
Journalist
Activist/Observer
Other
It's my position that office holders, staffers and consultants aren't any smarter than the rest of us. Prove me wrong. :)
Eric Berg
Posted by: Eric Berg | May 18, 2006 6:04:50 PM
ok, so Susan's race was not a hard pick...but being left out by the MSM is enough...not you too!
Posted by: Ed Dennis | May 18, 2006 9:36:57 PM
I love Eric's suggestion--though it might be hard to get clear categorical separation. It would be especially interesting to see the bloggers v. journo matchup. But I suppose you have other things to do than satisfy our idle curiosity.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 19, 2006 8:11:19 AM
Sounds like a fun summer project. It's why I asked the question -- just need to dig in to the data...
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 27, 2006 1:43:28 PM
