A respected Cal Republican pollster has trashed the entire Schwarzengger special election campaign. Calls it a loser from the beginning. Says that it was "vendor driven" by campaign consultants and bought into by Republican contributors who were "suckers" manipulated by bad polling data.
Entire interview:
http://www.flashreport.org/...
Some of the more remarkable quotes, in unconnected excerpts:
. . .there was no reason for a special election. It's a hard sell, as confirmed for the nth time by the [LA] Times survey just out. You can't sell. . .four propositions, for a special election that people feel is a farce. This was a lousy idea from the beginning. And we all know it's easier to get voters to vote no than vote yes. So, what were they thinking?
*
But wouldn't the very popular Proposition 75 bring the other propositions up?
I've long predicted that slating with 75 would be far more likely to bring down, even defeat, this otherwise near-certain winner. Schwarzenegger probably will achieve the impossible -- bringing down 'paycheck protection.'
*
I researched so-called `paycheck protection' years ago. Support erodes significantly when the opposition argues it doesn't address corporate contributions. . .
*
Paycheck protection is seen, as the Times poll just released shows, as disingenuous. Voters don't really believe it's supposed to protect workers. It's a stupid term. I think it was coined by Grover Norquist. It's too cute by half. . .it has a credibility problem and backfires.
*
I mean, why take this smart, wonderful communicator - -a macho guy, and make him into a milktoast, going to staged, contrived events in which he says next to nothing, and where each TV news report ridicules him and the event, and the "pre-selected" audience.
*
These people on the Republican side were like babes in the woods. One reporter told me I was the only major figure who would say on the record that this was a vendor-driven special election. Other major Republicans told him this but didn't want to be quoted on the record.
*
As for [Proposition] 77, voters don't care about it. And strategic polling before this was commenced should have focused on the three judge provision, which was a failure in the past. It would be nice if they would at least make new mistakes. It's boring to analyze the same ones, over and over again.
*
I'm sure Schwarzenegger will say he was briefed on how tough it will be. When he loses, he'll depict himself as a martyr who was pilloried, he'll say something about turnout, who knows what. But no reporters will ever ask the hard questions about how and why this guy's own team destroyed him, and the really hard questions about what their polling showed. . .
*
If the governor loses all four, can you write it off to being dealt a bad hand, in terms of voter turnout?
It's the old cop-out. They'll say turnout was too high, or turnout was too low, or it was as expected, but weird, strange, bizarre people turned out. Too many married lesbian seniors who are for gun control and against eminent domain. It's the same stuff they say when they're trying to raise money off polls that don't look good. They tweak them with entirely improbable, forced voter turnout scenarios to finally show good numbers.
To raise money?
From the suckers at the Lincoln Club. They are fed questionable data every two years, and they keep buying into it.
*
Who hires the polling firm?
Often, the consultant. Guess what? The pollster keeps reporting that the consultant's ads are working, so they buy more ads. . . So, it seems are that a survey concludes the campaign is not working. Better, when it's over and the client loses, to blame it on voter turnout.
*
Is there a hidden Schwarzenegger vote out there?
Yes, there is. It's very well hidden, right there with the very well concealed. . .Bush voters who were carrying the state for him in 2000 and 2004. Remember those Republican polls? The Democrats were laughing, then. And, I'm afraid, they'll be laughing again next week.
*
What about their new spot on tax hikes if you don't vote for [Proposition] 76. Is that probably based on a poll?
. . .it's an amateurish extrapolation of data. It's sort of like asking people if they want a tax hike, and when they so no, then inferring you can use that argument on 76. I don't think the argument has any credibility. . .The bottom line is that what we're seeing in this election was entirely foreseeable. The only surprise is that otherwise sharp conservatives and Republicans still fall for the line that when various public polls all look bad for our side, it's part of a liberal or left-wing conspiracy to tilt the election, and that "internals" show we're going to win. Well, I don't think the "internals" of the other side show good numbers for these ballot propositions. I hear they've been pretty unequivocal for a long time, and that the governor's ads were getting nowhere. If so, you wonder why they were kept on for long line. Increasing the media buy -- if you have the wrong messenger or message -- is not going to help. But, remember, we were told that their tracking was showing wonderful progress. If they lose all four, we should have a contest on how they'll explain their polling. Maybe it will be the old standby -- opinion shifted at the end, the last few days, and momentum was suddenly against them. More likely, they'll blame Republican voters for not coming out, as if this would be some total surprise. But major donors like to believe these arcane polling explanations, because it's easier to do so than admit they've been had. I mean, when is the last time a rich guy at the Lincoln Club admitted he was gullible and taken in by a poll that cooked the numbers?