California Spec. Election, two very different polls

The memory of this diary about the latest numbers on California's upcoming special election was still pretty fresh in my memory today. Overall, fairly good news (or not bad news)--74 and 75 are close, and 76/77 looked to be going down in flames.

Then I watched tonight's local news. More below.

The dKos diary by sanchez96 referred to the Public Policy Institute of California's poll. Tonight's news reported on the Hoover Institute's poll released today, with signifcantly different results. The numbers, (PPIC yes/no, Hoover yes/no):

Prop 74, teacher tenure: 46/48, 53/47
Prop 75, union dues: 46/46, 64/36
Prop 76, state budget: 30/62, 44/55
Prop 77, redistricting: 36/50, 55/45

The differences between the polls, 75, 76 and 77 in particular, is surprising. I'm not a professional poll watcher, by any means, but the disparities raise one, if not both, my eyebrows.

I offer no other analysis than this: Taking these polls at face value, right now anything could happen come November 8.

•  Hoover Institute

  is not known as a very accurate polling outfit.  Wait for tomorrow's release of the Field Poll, the gold standard in CA.  There will be good news.

  by juls on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:53:39 PM PDT

  •  Field Numbers Early.

    I only have the info (no link, sorry) on 74-77:

    74 (Teacher Tenure)

    Yes 44
    No  50

    75 (Union Dues)

    Yes 40
    No  50

    76 (Budget Cuts)

    Yes 32
    No  60

    77 (Redistricting)

    Yes 36
    No  51

    by sanchez96 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:36:20 PM PDT

•  That's what I needed to hear

  Don't know the ins and outs of the various polling groups, so here I was, ready to come up with a conspiracy theory about Hoover ginning the poll to cheerlead Schwarzenegger...

  by grimc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:57:34 PM PDT

  •  generally it is PPIC

    running second to Field, in terms of accuracy.  SUSA is a wildcard, they use different methods and questions.

    by juls on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 06:58:57 PM PDT

  •  The Hoover Institute

    is a right wing think tank loosely associated with Stanford University. Almost anything out of there is to be taken with a very large grain of salt. Condi Rice was associated with them. Their polls are always skewed with bias.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:32:01 PM PDT

  •  They need some outlier polls

    So when they Diebold the results, they can point to their quack pollsters' numbers as proof that that the election was valid.

    Of course the polling outfit gains sudden credibility for picking the winner when all the established outfits, with their stuffy, elitist "methodologies" and Ph.Ds were so wrong.
    So the Hoover Institute can become the 'gold standard' for CA polling, outFoxing all the old-school pollsters with their reality-based, pre-9/11 mentality.

    Not to get into an election fraud debate, but one could take this post as a fraudster hypothesis, soon to be put to an empirical test.

    by Cache on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:48:45 PM PDT

•  Polling is crazy

  PPIRG and Field look good for us, Hoover and SUSA look bad for us. Shit, we might have to wait until voting ends to find out what happens. GOTV!

  by jfern on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:01:01 PM PDT

  •  Yup

    seems kind of obvious, but I read somewhere that that is alL Dems need to do: GOTV. They dont need any extra motviation or anything they just need their people to show up to the polls. I hope CA Dems have a good GOTV strategy, I mean the state has gone blue in the last four presidential elections and both senators are Democrats so I would think so.

    by jj32 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:05:08 PM PDT

    •  what are you doing?

      I'm phone banking Wednesday, and possibly canvassing all weekend.  We must help with GOTV, this campaign will rise or fall on it.

      by dday on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:14:18 PM PDT

    •  I've made sure both parents

      and both grandparents are voting.  To confuse them less, I said "no on eveything."  My grandparents wanted to vote yes on 77, the redistricting one, but I printed out a map of the state's congressional seats and thoroughly confused them with gerrymandering, and now they're voting no.

      by AnthonySF on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:42:55 PM PDT

•  Hoover ?

  These guys are wing nuts. It's partisan junk.

  by bigbay on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:23:09 PM PDT

•  I voted 73-74-75-76-77-78 No 79-80 Yes

  Thought long and hard about KOS's stand on 77 - just could not give it the green light though he and ohters made quite a good case - reason it was Arnold's prop - and I wouldn't give the creep the time of day.

  by AustinSF on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:26:37 PM PDT

  •  Yep

    That's the consensus read. 77 looks good but there's a poison pill hiding in it.

    "NIX on the first SIX"

    by Rolfyboy6 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 07:34:41 PM PDT

    •  The poison pill

       - at least, the one that I consider most poisonous - is pointed out on kos's thread by JMcDonald and reiterated (by me) on the rebuttal thread here. Haven't seen any response to the point from kos.

      by rcbowman on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:29:09 PM PDT

      •  All due respect to Kos, but

        he acted like a butt on 77. Never defended its particulars, attacked others for their lack of knowledge about them, and the extent of his support was "I like it. I'm voting for it."

        He was incredibly lazy about thinking it through.

        by grimc on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:35:35 PM PDT

•  The polling is way off

  But there is one good thing.  I've noticed that all the polls, even if they look really bad for us like SUSA (which may be unreliable) and Hoover (which is a right wing think tank) the numbers are all trending in our direction.  That to me would indicate a positive.  I think the key will be turnout and how much turnout there is on each side.  In the 2003 recall election, the turnout was record high among Republicans and fairly low for Democrats.  If turnout for the election is uniformly low, I think we'll win.  If it is uniformly average or uniformly high, I think we'll win as well.  However, if Republicans come out to vote en masse, I think that Arnold will win most of these.  

  by SoCalLiberal on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:01:00 PM PDT

  •  Field Poll results early

    I got this from a very reliable source (cross your fingers they are right)

    I only have the info (no link, sorry) on 74-77:

    74 (Teacher Tenure)

    Yes 44
    No  50

    75 (Union Dues)

    Yes 40
    No  50

    76 (Budget Cuts)

    Yes 32
    No  60

    77 (Redistricting)

    Yes 36
    No  51

    by sanchez96 on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:42:03 PM PDT

    •  woohoo!

      I hope those are the numbers.  Field Poll tends to be very reliable.  

      by SoCalLiberal on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 04:10:54 AM PDT

•  Any Word

  On how 73 is doing?

  I'm voting NO on 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78.  YES on 79, 80.

  A good rule of thumb to go by is if Schwarzenegger is for it, it's bad for California.  ;-)

  by Kevin in Long Beach on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:04:08 PM PDT

  •  Despite the wacky poll fluctuations

    I just can't see 73 passing.  CA is a pro-choice state by 65-35, and even though there's lots of gray in between, I don't think it's 50% gray.  I see no reason why wingnuts would be more motivated to vote in this election than liberals.  If anything, liberals would be more inclined, if only to stick it to Arnold for calling this dumb election.

    by AnthonySF on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:46:21 PM PDT

    •  Hope So

      But I am somewhat uneasy... if 77 passes, we very well could see a Republican majority in this state... a la Texas.  If 77 passes and our state goes red, as unthinkable as it is, we could see anti-abortion laws here.  It's a frightening thought...

      by Kevin in Long Beach on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:21:12 AM PDT

  •  Prop 73 polling and others

       I've seen recent polls that showed 73 either running about even (46-46)or a bit behind (42-48). If we get some people to turn out we will win it because usually ballot measures lose support as people focus on them leading up to voting. Also the No on 73 campaign will be running TV spots in a couple of days. You can get more information at www.NoonProposition73.org . I also urge us Californians to work hard on GOTV, because the Yes on 73 campaign is a stealth campaign using churches as support bases. (They have spent little money, but have the Greedy Old Party endorsement as well.) 73 is supposed to be the one that drives the right-wing to the polls. I also wonder about 78 and 79 (prescription drugs).  If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on everything on the ballot losing. I'm voting YES on 79, and also 80 (but with less enthusiasm) and Yes on Y (the LAUSD school bond).

    by Zack from the SFV on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:10:14 PM PDT

    •  I've seen a good anti-73 ad

      the past week, having some mom say that she would encourage her daughter to speak to her, but doesn't want to force her or it would lead to some back-alley abortion or suicide.  ("For the safety of our daughters.")  I haven't seen any pro-73 ads, but maybe I'm not watching the right GOP-centered programming.

      by AnthonySF on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 07:02:50 AM PDT

      •  Saw That

        And it was a good ad.  

        by Kevin in Long Beach on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:21:35 AM PDT

    •  More 73

      You're right, it IS a stealth proposition... From what I understand, the language in 73 defines a fetus as being a person from the point of conception.  They're trying to stick this in our state Constitution.  It's outrageous.

      by Kevin in Long Beach on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 08:23:54 AM PDT

•  so today a woman was handing out fortune cookies

  fortune inside it was vote no on 74, 75, 76 for greater prosperity. very clever. it seems like most people still don't know much about the propositions but the ad spending has kicked up a notch.

  they are traps as usual - what's that quote about men being truly free and then rushing to put chains on again, I think by Voltaire?

  I usually have lots of trouble convincing people that unions are important, anywhere in California.
  as most people I know work barely above minimum wage crap jobs. in the supermarket strike the strikers got $15? an hour and scabs got around $20 and most people I knew in other jobs were getting $8-10.  also they still dream they will get to be the capitalist some day, and want lower taxes.  winning that argument means crushing their dreams.

  also - immigration and outsourcing is leading to increased supply of labor, which gives unions weaker leverage.  I am usually not a protectionist but I don't want to work for Chinese wages.

  when I was in Ventura last time everyone at the local junior college was reading Grapes of Wrath.

  by Eric Novinson on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 09:34:34 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps Rousseau?

    "Man is born free, but he lives everywhere in chains"

    OTOH someone around has a great sig from Voltaire:
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

    by Cache on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 11:56:58 PM PDT

  •  unions

    I think unions have a lot of clout still in this state. They're around 20% of the workforce, and then add in families and it's a lot of people.

    More importantly the state retirement system lumps a lot of union folks together including cops and firemen, so when Arnold talked about messing with the pensions these two powerful unions went balistic.

    by bigbay on Tue Nov 01, 2005 at 12:23:35 AM PDT

•  Will do some GOTV later this week

  and our household has three voters: all of us nixed the six (well my daughter still has to fill out her ballot, but I think that will be her vote.)

  This election is very close, turnout will be key.  Prop 73 has the far right working hard to get out the vote, but I think we can out GOTV them.

  by SanJoseLady on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 10:13:58 PM PDT