Posted on 10/17/2005 4:27:22 PM PDT by dangus
I keep reading that stories that support for the ballot propositions backed by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is very weak. Even the Washington Times claims two are failing ("in the polls"), as if that finding represented a concensus of polls (Oct. 17, "For Arnold stakes are high"). I had thought I had seen them doing well, so I looked it up on the internet. The most recent poll I could find was done by Survey USA, released October 2nd. Its results:
Proposition 73: Physicials must notify a parent of a pregnant minor 48 hours before performing the abortion. Yes, 59%. No, 39%
Proposition 74: Delays probationary period for new teachers from 2 years to five years, making it easier to terminate teachers with unsatisfactory performance evaluations. Yes, 55%. No, 44%
Proposition 75: Prohibits unions from spending money on political campaigns without the consent of their members. Yes, 60%. No, 37%
Proposition 76: Constrains spending growth to revenue growth. Yes, 58%. No, 36%
Proposition 77: Removes authority for designing congressional boundaries from state legislators. Instead, voters must approve plans drawn up by a panel of retired judges. Yes, 59%; No, 36%
Now, these results may be rather skewed to Republicans; I don't know. I do know that the poll's demographic sampling has a very balanced number of Republicans and Democrats (39% to 38%), and that the state votes considerably more heavily Democratic than that. On the other hand, many of the registered Republicans are "Clinton Republicans" who never came back to the Republican party, so maybe many Californians consider themsleves Republican even though they vote Democratic in national (presidential and congressional) elections.
But even if the sampling is horrendous, the results are strong enough to stand up; The propositions the Washington Times claims are losing are winning by 22 or 23%.
It's not uncommon for populist initiatives to fade a little down the stretch. Many polls show initial high approval ratings, which are bent downward by relentless, well-funded attacks by leftist groups such as unions, ethnic lobbies and other special interest groups. But the campaign is mature, and these initiatives are still leading... and it's just plain wrong to suggest that polls show otherwise.
Survey USA does report its results as registering a boost in support. The previous poll, which the Washington Times probably referred to, was by the Public Policy INstitute of California, for the Los Angeles Times. The LA Times predicted a Bustamente would easily win, just days before Bustamente was trounced by Schwarzenegger in the election. The LA Times poll showed Prop 75 winning with 58% of the vote, but 76 losing 28-61 and 77 losing 34-49. Perhaos tipping their bias, the LA Times did not report results of Prop 75 in their vote summation.
They'd better or you can kiss fiscal solvency in CA for the next 25 years goodbye.
I had no idea polls had mileage, but this SurveyUSA poll certainly has. It seems I've been seeing articles on it for over two weeks.
I haven't heard of that particular poll but the ones I have seen are not as optimistic for the governor.
Here is an article on one poll that discusses the consensus of polls.
" October 17, 2005 06:08 PM US Eastern Timezone
Poll: Race Too Close to Call for Two Schwarzenegger Propositions
STANFORD, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 17, 2005--A Stanford University-Hoover Institution-Knowledge Networks (S-H-KN) online survey shows two of the statewide ballot propositions backed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statistical dead heat.
Prop. 74 (Teacher Tenure) and Prop. 77 (Redistricting) both split likely California voters right down the middle.
Another Schwarzenegger initiative, Prop. 76 (State Spending and School Funding Limits), is trailing by a wide margin, with 70% of likely California voters saying they will vote against it.
Prop. 75 (Public Employee Union Dues), endorsed by the Governor, currently has a commanding majority, with 70% of likely voters saying they will vote in favor.
While the current numbers are generally consistent with other recent surveys conducted by the Field Poll and the Public Policy Institute of California, the S-H-KN survey indicates that support for both Proposition 74 and Proposition 77 is higher than previously reported. In the S-H-KN poll respondents view a facsimile of the actual ballot on their computer screens and make yes or no vote decisions just as they will do in the upcoming special election. "
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20051017006280&newsLang=en
Prop 75 is the biggest one in my opinion. I voted absentee today.
I checked back to Oct. 1 (before the poll release) for titles and keywords being poll, schwartzenegger, california and prop. I found no such stories.
I checked back to Oct. 1 (before the poll release) for titles and keywords being poll, schwartzenegger, california and prop. I found no such stories.
Oops. Schwarzenegger. I did not misspell his name when I looked for stories.
Try this seach... since we are looking for recent info i used Google news instead of plain google
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=california+proposition+polls&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d
I notice the two polls showing Arnold's props having more trouble are both academic polls. Academic polls are notoriously laughable; I can probably find you some confidently predicting a Mondale landslide. On the other hand, the Hoover Institute is overall one of the most conservative schools around, so at least there isn't an institutional demand for a liberal result.
I presumed you meant you've been reading them on FR for weeks! Are you seriously complaining that you saw information from a FR post published elsewhere?
"Yes, another good point. My point about the patient being able to determine the value of his care is also valid."
Can you imagine what the 80's would have been like with Mondale instead of Reagan?
I suspect that the Los Angeles Times will have another "free newspaper drop", full of hit pieces on the front page against the Governor, in the immediate days before the election (as they did right before and the day of the Recall Election).
I also suspect that their already falling circulation will fall even more.
Post 11 should have been directed to post 9.
The sampling may be "skewed to Republicans" versus the general population and versus the turnout in a national / general election, I agree. But this is a special election in an "off-year," and turnout in such elections does, in fact, skew Republican. I can't speak to the accuracy of the sampling in this particular poll, but the notion in general that it's got more GOP in it than the population as a whole is simply an effort at accurately predicting the result, not cooking the books.
"I presumed you meant you've been reading them on FR for weeks! Are you seriously complaining that you saw information from a FR post published elsewhere?"
No...that is definately not what I meant... :)
IRAQ: WAR SAVES 24,000 LIVES PER YEAR
Bush Years Witness Economic Boom in Developing Nations
Check my userpage for others.
I hate it when that happens.
The questions were also very leading (by omission, mostly). In polling on Prop 76, they didn't use the word "education", "Prop98", "borrowing", or any of the other changes in the law.
["Proposition 76 limits growth in state spending so that it does not exceed recent growth in state revenues. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on Proposition 76? Or would you vote no? "]
Here were the polling participants that I previously posted here:
[I believe the current registration is approx 45% dem, 35% rep, 15% indep, and 5% other (lib, grn).
Party # Polled % Republican 203 39% Democrat 204 39% Independent 117 22% Total 524 100%
I posted a comparison of PPIC vs. SurveyUSA here, although it's been a few weeks now since both were published.
I don't think much of the questions they asked, but they're probably representative of the general public consciousness on the topic, which is why democracy is so scary.
Still not as bas as when a vanity is posted to a state topic and the author acknowledges it (#17).
the perfect example of an oxymoron
Try keyword: SurveyUSA
Arnold Resurgent? (Survey USA, Five propositions are all leading comfortably with likely voters)
California Special Election: Arnold Winning on All Initatives
New! Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Reform (California Propositions 73-77)
The 2005 elections (Barone on NYC, New Jersey, Virginia, and CA Referendums) [Same poll--and same Barone article]
Michael Barone on 2005 Elections...... [same Survey USA poll]
They all look like pretty reasonable policies to me.
How can that be? We were told many years ago that CA was done, finished, and bankrupt.
Wheew! I guess we still have a chance.
Each time these sort of things come to the ballot they do better than the time before, so eventually the union bosses won't be able to fool enough joe sixpacks. The Red Davis recall of 2000 flopped, but we finally drove a stake through his heart, it was just a matter of time. I think time is up for the opponents of 73, 75, 76, & 77.
It's not called the land of fruits and nuts for nothing.
It seems to be some sort of mass delusion. This belief that the well will never dry up.
Good! I'm voting for all of them.
OK, thanks. No harm in repeating a little good news, though, is there? And hopefully I've added a little worthwhile commentary. :^)
See post #19, or better yet, read the second half of that thread.
The SurveyUSA poll is more than suspect--it has no credibility. Those commissioning it didn't even publish it. It had misleading questions, questionable poll techniques, questionable participation percentages, etc.
I agree with those that say the only poll that counts is the one when we put our votes in the ballot box. The rest is pure propaganda, imo.
Looks like I CAN add new information with this post:
The Questions by the PPIC were ridiculously leading, and in fact, they seem to be a test of how best opponents can frame the issue. For instance, they asked whether voters felt the current system of drawing boundaries needed to be replaced. A majority voted "yes." But they didn't report those results.
The first question focused on how much the new system would cost, citing figures in the million dollar range for the state, and county. It was ambiguous whether the dollar figures were per county of for the whole state; it read as if it were per county, but reason tells me it must have been for the whole state. When worded this way, a majorityt rejected the proposal. These were the only results reported by the press. (They probably justified because this question refered to the proposition by number.)
Likewise, when asked whether they liked the general principle behind Proposition 86, a comfortable plurality said "yes." But they didn't report those results. What they reported was what they described thusly:
"It limits state spending to the prior year’s level plus three years’ average revenue growth. It changes state minimum school funding requirements under Proposition 98. It permits the governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce budget appropriations of the governor’s choosing.
State spending is likely to be reduced relative to current law, due to the additional spending limit and new powers granted to the governor. Reductions could apply to schools and shift costs to other local governments. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 76?"
Additional spending limits? (Does that mean more spending, or more limits?) New powers? Shifting costs? Reductions to local schools? Ee-gads! No wonder their question flunked.
UGH! So many errors, let me just re-post:
Looks like I CAN add new information with this post:
The Questions by the PPIC were ridiculously leading, and in fact, they seem to be a test of how opponents can best frame the issue. For instance, they asked whether voters felt the current system of drawing boundaries needed to be replaced. A majority voted "yes." But they didn't report those results.
They only reported the previous question, which focused on how much the new system would cost, citing figures in the million dollar range for the state, and counties. It was ambiguous whether the dollar figures for the counties were per county or for the whole state; it read as if it were per county, but reason tells me it must have been for the whole state, since it was comparable to the statewide costs. When worded this way, a majority rejected the proposal. These were the only results reported by the press. (They probably justified in doing this because this was the question which refered to the proposition by number.)
Likewise, when asked whether they liked the general principle behind Proposition 86, a comfortable plurality said "yes." But they didn't report those results. What they reported was what they described thusly:
"It limits state spending to the prior year’s level plus three years’ average revenue growth. It changes state minimum school funding requirements under Proposition 98. It permits the governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce budget appropriations of the governor’s choosing.
State spending is likely to be reduced relative to current law, due to the additional spending limit and new powers granted to the governor. Reductions could apply to schools and shift costs to other local governments. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 76?"
Additional spending limits? (Does that mean more spending, or more limits?) New powers? Shifting costs? Reductions to local schools? Ee-gads! No wonder their question flunked.
Have at it!
The PPIC questions are directly from the voter pamphlet.
SurveyUSA didn't even bother to mention "education" when asking about Prop 76. It's in the TITLE for goodness sake.
Which is misleading?
I mentioned in my analysis that the participation looked suspect. However, I think the questions were much fairer than the LA Times. As for the TV stations not reporting SurveyUSA, the LA Times also only reported the questions that said what they wanted to hear (as I explained in my previous post). The simplest explanation is that the TV stations didn't like the results: They knew the metholodly going in.
The PPIC questions are NOT from the voter pamphlet. They use chosen exerpts from the voter pamphlet, designed to cause confusion. The voter pamphlets can be found here:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2005Special
Whether they're winning or losing, *I* will be voting for them.
I'm hoping this is the first step toward the eventual abolition of the state legislature. California can have a board of directors (Governor, Attorney General, etc) and stock holders (the voters) and all legislation can be created and accepted (or rejected) by the voters through the initiative process.
Actually, the link you gave is to the petition language.
The voter guides, which include the Ballot Title and Summaries, are here:
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/
The PPIC Poll and questions can be viewed here:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_905MBS.pdf
By the way, I think I found where SurveyUSA is getting their turnout model: the previous state election primary, 2002. If so, I understand why would use such numbers as a general policy, but I thikn its a bad selection given the particulars.
What does the LA Times have to do with it? The James Irvine Foundation paid for the PPIC poll. It wasn't connected to the LA Times.
And KABC and KPIX are radio stations, not TV stations.
(Denny Crane: "I like nature. Don't talk to me about the environment".)
(Denny Crane: "I like nature. Don't talk to me about the environment".)
Likely according to whom? I don't buy it for reasons I've already articulated.
(Denny Crane: "I like nature. Don't talk to me about the environment".)
The only polls that reported Bustamante as winning were in the first month, when Arnold, McClintock, Simon, and Ueberroff were still in the race. None of them "called the election" for Bustamante (at least none of the ones I could find when I looked recently). In fact, he lost the lead quite early and all the polls showed that.
>> The only polls that reported Bustamante as winning were in the first month, when Arnold, McClintock, Simon, and Ueberroff were still in the race. None of them "called the election" for Bustamante (at least none of the ones I could find when I looked recently). In fact, he lost the lead quite early and all the polls showed that. <<
From LA Times: "Poll Analysis: Recall Race Tightens" (Sept 12, 2003)
"The recall election is just three weeks away... Among likely voters, 30% would vote for Bustamente, 25% would vote for Scwatzenegger, and 18% would vote for McClintock."
Good Luck to you in Ca. These propositions sound like they make sense. Hope the voters can see through union lies.
I read about it in the LA Times, that's what. The fact that it was funded by the James Irvine Foundation discredits it compeletly. Irvine is dedicated to fostering political activism among "the poor" (read, ghettos, not those with the lowest income) and increasing the "cultural diversity" among Californians. (How? By letting heterosexual "anglos" back into California's metro areas? Oh, "anglo" is the lack of culture, right!)
Their last annual report shows how they intend to do anything they can to derail the initiatives, buried in liberalspeak:
"Our grantmaking focuses, in part, on ensuring the development of public policy related to issues -- such as redistricting, term limits, and the state budget -- is informed by credible research, includes new perspectives, and considers the implications for low-income Californians."
In case you are not fluent in Liberalspeak, that means:
"We will do everything within our power to manipulate the press to ensure that all stories covering redistricting, term limits and public expenditures are written to promote the bias of Democratic special interest groups, such as Marxist university professors, professional welfare advocates and race-baiting ethnic lobbyists."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.