Whether Republican Roy Moore won or lost Tuesday's Alabama special U.S. Senate election, it is clear his support was hard to gauge in the same way support for now-President Donald Trump was in the 2016 presidential election.
And, curiously, we believe the same effect has come into play about the town of Signal Mountain in its consideration of starting its own school system.
The town held a public forum Monday night, and opponents of an independent school system had worked the phones to have a frothing anti-change crowd in attendance.
Indeed, to gauge responses from the dozens of separate-system foes, you would wonder why the town even began what has to date only been a fact-finding mission about whether such a breakaway district was even feasible. And you would believe the exploratory committee had wasted time and effort researching a subject everyone was against.
But everyone is not against it.
Thousands of Signal Mountain residents who'd prefer a separate system didn't need to come out Monday. They were sure they wanted the town to create its own system, have closer local control of its schools and be sure how the state's per-pupil money is spent.
They felt the committee was doing its job and knew they would have their say when a referendum was held on an independent system. They didn't feel the need to put their two cents into the fray and be shouted down by opponents amid what Times Free Press reporter Meghan Mangrum called "palpable tension."
Clearly, there are pluses and minuses of a separate system, but it appears opponents - who already tried to raise the false issue of inequity - are hoping to head off a vote before one is called for.
We have said before, and repeat, this is Signal Mountain's issue to decide. The exploratory committee has said a separate system is feasible with several caveats, but we hope a referendum some time in the near future will give town residents the choice as to whether those caveats make the move too high of a hill to climb.
Meanwhile, polls before the Alabama Senate election were all over the board. Moore would be down two points to Democrat Doug Jones one day and up two points the next. On the day before voting, one poll had a nine-point advantage for Moore, and one had a 10-point lead for Jones.
Pundits, as pundits must, have their reasons for this. Among them: The election is uncharacteristically in mid-December, Moore's alleged past behavior has made what should be an easy win for a Republican into a toss-up, automated polls are prohibited by law from calling voters on cellphones, the electorate is hard to determine (though it always is), and voters may not want to reveal they're voting for Moore.
The last reason is discounted by those who were wrong about Trump's election (and now have what they believe are several good explanations for their error), but we think it has some merit.
Not only were some Alabamans unlikely to reveal their choice for senator because of the distant past sexual misconduct allegations against the polarizing Moore but also because, like many Americans in 2016, they didn't want politicians, pollsters and prognosticators telling them for whom they should vote, or not vote.
That factor was alive and well in the 2016 presidential race. Many voters didn't like either major party candidate, but they were clear about which candidate was preferred by the supposedly unbiased news channels and newspaper reporters and by the legion of entertainers whose knowledge about current issues could fit on the head of a pin. Why should we, the undoubtedly determined, reveal to those who are already partisan our secret-ballot choices?
Hillary Clinton, of course, was heavily favored in every major poll and was expected to sweep in a Democratic Senate and possibly a Democratic House. As we all now know, Trump was elected in an Electoral College majority, and Republicans retained the Senate and the House.
The top main reason for the upset, according to an analysis released in May by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, was statewide polling underestimating the level of the now-president's support. One of the three main factors cited in that reason was, according to a Business Insider report on the analysis, "many Trump voters failing to reveal their preferences until after the election."
It turns out "polls," Patrick Murray, the head of Monmouth University's polling institute, told Business Insider in a different article on the race, "might not be capable of predicting elections."
Add that to the most money, the loudest voice and the most organized as "sides" that don't always assure success in politics and political issues. There might be a lesson there.