Don't believe the lies: Schwarzenegger's Propositions all winning

SurveyUSA ^ | 10/17/05 | Dangus

[dangus]

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.

[calcowgirl]

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.

[goldstategop]

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".)

[goldstategop]

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".)

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[goldstategop]

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".)

[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.

[dangus]

>> 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."

[AmericaUnite]

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

[dangus]

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."

[calcowgirl]

I'm all for discussion, but at least let's agree on what the was truly said, by who, and when. I'm not a big fan of vanity posts, but when freepers do their homework and provide accurate, supported analysis with links and backup, I think its great because it stimulates more conversation.

In part, you wrote: 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.

I do have a problem with some of that, and your follow-up excerpts. For one thing, you refer to articles in the LA Times and Washington Times but provide no links, titles, or dates. You said the PPIC poll was done for the LA Times implying that it was therefore biased. When advised it was done on behalf of the James Irvine Foundation, you provided additional quotes concluding additional bias, again without any sources. If people want to follow up or learn more, or make judgments on their own, you give them little opportunity.

You also said: "The LA Times predicted a Bustamente would easily win, just days before Bustamente was trounced by Schwarzenegger in the election ", and later provided a partial quote from an Sept 12, 2003 LA Times article, not "days before" the election, but almost 4 weeks earlier, which continued to show Ueberoth in the results (taking 8%). You didn't provide a link, but I found it here: Poll Analysis: Recall Race Tightens. But the same day, the LA Times also published a lead story discussing the poll calling out the "troubles emerging for Bustamante." [See Recall a Tossup as Successor Race Tightens

However, on October 1, 2003, 6 days before the election, which is more comparable to your statement of "just days before" the election, the LA Times led with the following story: Majority Now Favors Recall; Schwarzenegger Leads Rivals, which showed Arnold trouncing Bustamante, not the other way around.

Regardless, as I said in my previous post, they certainly weren't "calling the race" for Bustamante, even in the poll a month earlier.

You also said: "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."

Do you mean Survey USA shows Prop 75 winning with 58%? Or are you referring to a different LA Times article and, if so, what was the date of the article? PPIC didn't poll on Prop 73, Prop 75, or Prop 80, so they understandably would not have included anything on Prop 75, or the others. Similarly, SurveyUSA didn't poll on Prop 78, Prop 79, or Prop 80.

[giobruno]

Between the unions, an overwhelmingly leftist legislature that can gerrymander itself indefinately, a huge illegal population, and no conservative in sight that can change any of it, I think things are different than the past "crisis". The demographics of CA have changed in the last 30 years, and very severely.

[giobruno]

As long as CA occupies such a central position in the US economy, it may not dry up.

[Black Tooth]

Your right. Maybe I'll move to Toledo Ohio.

In my next life.

[Kuksool]

According to the logic of some on FR, "true conservatives" should defeat all of Schwarzenegger's propositions in order to teach Republicans across the nation not to be RINOS.

[ChildOfThe60s]

I think CA is one of those "too big to fail" situations. To avert a catastrophe the federal government would have to intervene in some fashion. Scary thought.

[giobruno]

LOL, I live in San Clemente, and I don't see CA falling into the sea or rolling belly-up anytime soon, even with the debt and poor fiscal management, ultimately, powerful, outside, economic forces force compliance. And I will not be moving to Toledo, either (especially after viewing the craven cowardice of a city that allows violent thugs to roam unimpeded), but I certainly would consider the Carolinas or Georgia.

[dangus]

I provided source material for the Washington Times article the way I found it: in the paper. It would have taken two seconds to look it up. Since you did indicate a desire for them, here are the links to the James Irvine foundation's mission statement:

http://www.irvine.org/about_irvine/mission.shtml

I do not link to the LA Times because it requires registration, which most people do not have anyway. And I don't like to provide links (which gives money) to news sources who don't allow fair use and who require registration.

I regret if saying "for the LA Times" created the impression that the LA Times funded the poll. The PPIC did apparently give full publishing permissions to the LA Times, and the poll was apparently undertaken with the understanding that the LA Times would likely publish it (given the stated intention of the funding is for mass communication.) If you look at the article
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poll25aug25,0,7101982.story?coll=la-home-headlines
I think you'll find my wording reasonable.

And you bet I meant to imply that the poll was biased! The LA Times has a history of choosing polls to advance their agenda; the fact that the poll was funded by a partisan special-interest group and given to them as part of a campaign to influence mass media towards desired political outcomes hardly vindicates the LA Times from the accusation of bias!!!

As for the Bustamente poll, if you want to squabble semantics, I'd say my description (calling three weeks "days") is a lot more accurate than yours (saying it was in the first month of the campaign). I don't have the sources off-hand, but there was an uproar on Free Republic about that LA Times poll, other polls had already shown Schwarzenegger taking a commanding lead.

Furthermore, the poll was released after Ueberroth and Simon had dropped out. Ueberroth (sp?) dropped out during the poll taking, and although he was listed in the results of the poll, he was not much of a factor. Simon had quit long ago. Your intention sure seemed like it was to state that the LA Times results were off because Simon and Ueberroth were dragging down Schwarzenegger; that certainly was not the case. The LA Times only showed Arnold winning long after his victory was a very fore-gone conclusion, but they had tried to breathe life into Bustamente absurdly late.

And lastly, according to the LA Times article I linked to, PPIC DID poll on Proposition 75. But they buried it in the volumuous text of the article, and, precisely as I stated, did not include the results in their summation. That PPIC website also obscures the undesired poll result certainly lends credibility to PPIC or LA Times. Before you accuse people of shoddy reporting, you should read the entire article.

I don't mind FReeper nit-picking of articles. In fact, I rely on it when I read others' vanities. I know that FReepers do not let misrepresentation stand, even when it bolsters conservative arguments. And that's very valuable for our credibility.

But you seem just simply argumentative.

[calcowgirl]

Thank you for the response and the links. I did not intend to be argumentative but I do strive for honest representation. As such, I may have overreacted since the subject SurveyUSA poll is the same one that had already been posted here multiple times and highly criticized. I also don't think that titles alleging "lies", that are not substantiated as such, do much for credibility.

Regarding the PPIC poll, you gave me links to an article discussing an August PPIC poll. That would explain the discrepancies. I had wrongly assumed that you were referring to the recent PPIC poll published in October (based on September info) since that is the one being cited in most other media, as well.

http://www.ppic.org/main/series.asp?i=12

Again, thanks for the reply.

[dangus]

Thanks... actually, now I find I did screw up! I had gone looking for the LA Times story on the poll, and that was the article I found... I missed that the date on the article was in August, not October! Apparently the LA Times, while frequently citing the poll, never published the October poll.

And I learned this, too: Arnold Schwarzenegger is suing the Democratic Secretary of State Bill Lockyer for the titling of Proposition 76. California's constitution forbids the sort of school cuts Lockyer claims Proposition 76 would cause, and Prop 76 lacks any language to override the current constitution. Lockyer is presuming that the legislature can't possibly balance a budget, so will have to cut the school budgets, even though such a move is plainly illegal.

Bill Lockyer is using his office to turn an election summary into an illegal campaign contribution. The proper exercise of his office would be to remind the legislature that failure to adequately fund schools would be illegal.