Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Don't believe the lies: Schwarzenegger's Propositions all winning
SurveyUSA ^ | 10/17/05 | Dangus

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.


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: ahhnold; arnold; ballotprops; california; dangus; election; election2005; governator; governor; govschwarzenegger; initiative; mcclintockitesgag; prop73; prop74; prop75; prop76; prop77; schwarzenegger; surveyusa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 10/17/2005 4:27:29 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dangus

They'd better or you can kiss fiscal solvency in CA for the next 25 years goodbye.


2 posted on 10/17/2005 4:30:44 PM PDT by giobruno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
We have one poll with the propositions sinking and one with them passing. I'd sure like to see something more recent and definitive.

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.

3 posted on 10/17/2005 4:33:47 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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


4 posted on 10/17/2005 4:37:10 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Prop 75 is the biggest one in my opinion. I voted absentee today.


5 posted on 10/17/2005 4:42:20 PM PDT by Chicos_Bail_Bonds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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.


6 posted on 10/17/2005 4:42:20 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

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.


7 posted on 10/17/2005 4:42:53 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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


8 posted on 10/17/2005 4:45:05 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

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.


9 posted on 10/17/2005 4:45:38 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

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?


10 posted on 10/17/2005 4:47:06 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dangus

"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?


11 posted on 10/17/2005 4:48:04 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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.


12 posted on 10/17/2005 4:48:31 PM PDT by Christian4Bush (FreeRepublic: your educational retreat from the stress of Leftist media jihad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus; calcowgirl
IIRC, SurveyUSA's poll didn't exactly have a generally representative sample either, but it might be representative of those who would show up to vote in a special election. Ask ccg on that one, I believe she grabbed that data.
13 posted on 10/17/2005 4:48:47 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Post 11 should have been directed to post 9.


14 posted on 10/17/2005 4:49:25 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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.


15 posted on 10/17/2005 4:49:27 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

"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... :)


16 posted on 10/17/2005 4:51:17 PM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Other recent Dangus vanities:

IRAQ: WAR SAVES 24,000 LIVES PER YEAR
Bush Years Witness Economic Boom in Developing Nations
Check my userpage for others.

17 posted on 10/17/2005 4:51:23 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Post 11 should have been directed to post 9.

I hate it when that happens.

18 posted on 10/17/2005 4:54:39 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon (Lt. Gen. Russel Honore to MSM: "You are stuck on stupid. Over.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; dangus
There was lots of screwy stuff to not believe about that poll, the most glaring being that the people who requested the poll (KABC and KPIX?) never published it and reportedly were questioning it themselves.

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%

19 posted on 10/17/2005 5:17:41 PM PDT by calcowgirl (CA Special Election: Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
PPIC and Field both show them tanking. SurveyUSA shows them succeeding (and has been the basis for about 8 different threads here at FR, hence its familiarity).

I posted a comparison of PPIC vs. SurveyUSA here, although it's been a few weeks now since both were published.

20 posted on 10/17/2005 5:22:09 PM PDT by calcowgirl (CA Special Election: Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
Dang! We agree for once.

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.

21 posted on 10/17/2005 5:23:14 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
Post 11 should have been directed to post 9. ...I hate it when that happens.

Still not as bas as when a vanity is posted to a state topic and the author acknowledges it (#17).

22 posted on 10/17/2005 5:25:34 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: giobruno
solvency in CA

the perfect example of an oxymoron

23 posted on 10/17/2005 5:25:50 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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]


24 posted on 10/17/2005 5:26:53 PM PDT by calcowgirl (CA Special Election: Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
How does a state that just took a multi-billion dollar loan go about running up a multi-billion dollar deficit the very next year?
25 posted on 10/17/2005 5:56:43 PM PDT by giobruno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s
How does a state that just took a multi-billion dollar loan go about running up a multi-billion dollar deficit the very next year?
26 posted on 10/17/2005 5:56:53 PM PDT by giobruno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dangus

They all look like pretty reasonable policies to me.


27 posted on 10/17/2005 6:05:46 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giobruno
They'd better or you can kiss fiscal solvency in CA for the next 25 years goodbye.

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.

28 posted on 10/17/2005 6:09:20 PM PDT by Black Tooth (The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dangus
I'm sure the MSM is feeding you their own wishful thinking, but it is going to be close on a couple of 'em.

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.

29 posted on 10/17/2005 6:24:33 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: giobruno

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.


30 posted on 10/17/2005 6:25:03 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s......you weren't really there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Good! I'm voting for all of them.


31 posted on 10/17/2005 7:22:55 PM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

OK, thanks. No harm in repeating a little good news, though, is there? And hopefully I've added a little worthwhile commentary. :^)


32 posted on 10/17/2005 9:53:41 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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.


33 posted on 10/17/2005 10:19:05 PM PDT by calcowgirl (CA Special Election: Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; Carry_Okie

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.


34 posted on 10/17/2005 10:24:03 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

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.


35 posted on 10/17/2005 10:27:44 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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?


36 posted on 10/17/2005 10:29:44 PM PDT by calcowgirl (CA Special Election: Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

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.


37 posted on 10/17/2005 10:30:56 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

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


38 posted on 10/17/2005 10:32:59 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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.


39 posted on 10/17/2005 10:36:37 PM PDT by KamperKen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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


40 posted on 10/17/2005 10:43:27 PM PDT by calcowgirl (CA Special Election: Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

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.


41 posted on 10/17/2005 10:45:11 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dangus

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.


42 posted on 10/17/2005 10:48:15 PM PDT by calcowgirl (CA Special Election: Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Too balanced so that could affect the results. In most media polls they oversample Democrats. Still the SurveyUSA result shouldn't be dismissed so quickly. Two years ago, every MSM poll called the recall election for Bustamante.

(Denny Crane: "I like nature. Don't talk to me about the environment".)
43 posted on 10/17/2005 11:13:15 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
I wouldn't shed tears if Prop 76 went down but if 75 and 77 passed it would cripple the Democrat-union political machine. No more millions from fat cat union bosses flowing to Democratic politicians and no more safe districts for them to run in. We can always get a better and more effective spending limit down the road. Its not the end of the world if we got half a loaf. And that's a start on the work that remains ahead to be done.

(Denny Crane: "I like nature. Don't talk to me about the environment".)
44 posted on 10/17/2005 11:17:57 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dangus
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?"

Likely according to whom? I don't buy it for reasons I've already articulated.

45 posted on 10/17/2005 11:35:19 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The way the spending limit is calculated, spending cuts don't have to come for another few years. Care to guess who may be out of office then? No one wants those kinds of cuts but every one likes to hear talk about proposed spending cuts more than talk about proposed tax increases. No one wants those either.

(Denny Crane: "I like nature. Don't talk to me about the environment".)
46 posted on 10/17/2005 11:41:16 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

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.


47 posted on 10/18/2005 12:04:37 AM PDT by calcowgirl (CA Special Election: Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

>> 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."


48 posted on 10/18/2005 5:47:24 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Good Luck to you in Ca. These propositions sound like they make sense. Hope the voters can see through union lies.


49 posted on 10/18/2005 5:58:35 AM PDT by AmericaUnite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

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."


50 posted on 10/18/2005 6:03:43 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson