Poll numbers are always spun by both sides to prove their point or totally dismissed as bunk, because they don't fit in with what else they are saying. Yesterday, I used a poll as a wake up call, while the Schwarzenegger campaign and Republican bloggers rejoiced. Today the
Mercury News has some interesting numbers about internal union polling.
The union survey by San Francisco pollster David Binder sampled 777 AFL-CIO-affiliated union members. Initially, they split 47 percent in favor of the measure to 46 percent against.
This prompted Mike Murphy to rejoice over at
JoinArnold
Imagine the shock and horror at union HQ when that news rolled in. I'm sure the budget to crush all union democracy and dissent was tripled on the spot. Look for even more screaming and fear mongering lies now about Prop 75 leading to the end of the world.
There was no shock or dismay over at the AFL-CIO, see they know one thing that we have repeated over and over: the more people learn about these ballot measures, the less likely they are to support them. And indeed that same poll bears that out.
After being told that unions were losing power to corporations and that Proposition 75 was part of the governor's "attack on union benefits,'' 34 percent favored the measure, while 52 percent opposed it.
Indeed in 2004, businesses outspent labor 24-1 in PAC and individual donations nationally. Proposition 75 has always been a Schwarzenegger backed measure and many see it as his retribution for brutal fights over education funding and his ill advised attempt to reduce compensation for first responders killed in the line of duty. The public employee unions have been effective in thwarting most attempts by Schwarzenegger to mess with issues that nurses, firefighters, cops and teachers care about. If this measure truly was about ensuring people's money did not go to causes they don't support then it would include all unions (not just public employees'), organizations AND corporations.
Those AFL-CIO members who were questioned in the poll most likely were not members of public employee unions that would be directly affected by the proposition. The California Teachers Association conducted their own polling.
In a CTA survey of its members from early September, 32 percent supported Proposition 75 and 62 percent opposed it, according to Diane Feldman, a CTA pollster. After giving arguments for and against the measure, she said, support dropped to 18 percent, while opposition rose to 74 percent.
What information a poll gives effects to a large degree the response. Take for example the question asked by SUSA about Proposition 76.
Next, Proposition 76. 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?
Their wording that got a 58% Yes 39% NO result, was not even close to what the Field Poll used in late August.
From the Chronicle today:
Just last month, the Public Policy Institute poll found that only 26 percent of voters surveyed approved of the idea and 63 percent opposed it.
Why the difference?
Maybe it's that the Survey USA question didn't mention that school funding could be affected by the measure, "and that's right in the ballot title,'' said Field pollster Mark DiCamillo.
"We ask our question in 35 words. They ask their questions in 105 words,'' responded Survey USA's Jay Leve, adding that sometimes the actual ballot language is deliberately misleading.
Now the actual wording of Proposition 76 on the ballot November 8th.
Title: State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Limits state spending to prior year's level plus three previous years' average revenue growth. Changes minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98). Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce budget appropriations of Governor's choosing. 42?
Going even further we can see the effects of changing the wording of the title and summary. This summer the Attorney General's office changed the official title and summary. The Melman Group had already conducted a poll using the old language in July where 29% said yes and 39% said no with 33% undecided. Then in August they re-ran the poll changing the wording. The results changed significantly.
Our poll finds that the new inititative wording has the support of just 28% of voters- the same anemic level as that earlier title and summary. Moreover, today a 51% majority oppose the initiative. Indeed, opposition to the initiative today is 12 greater than it was to the original wording a month ago.
This finding is striking. First, it stands in direct opposition to the statements made by the Governor's strategists suggesting that the new wording of Prop. 76 would enhance its prospects for passage. In fact the evidence indicates the exact opposite. Second, as we know from decades of polling on California initiatives, the "yes" vote is critical, as most undecided on an initiative voters approach Election Day tend to vote no. By this standard, this initiative is in deep trouble. The fact that a majority are already saying they would reject the initiative underscores its weakness.
Of all of the initiatives Arnold is backing, this one, his cornerstone is fairing the worst. Now it even seems he can't get anyone to donate to his efforts, not exactly a great sign four weeks out despite the one signal poorly worded robo call poll.
----------------------------------------
In other news we seem to have garnered the attention of Murphy on the JoinArnold blog. He seems to think that we are holding our dog Bubba hostage and that we are beatniks with a frayed orange Dean hat. He did offer to buy us beer though.
(Actually I'm quite soft on hyper young kids in politics. I used to be one too many years ago. After they loose these initiatives I officially offer free beers on the CRT to the ABC website staff. Or Herbal tea. They clearly work hard. Selling that crap must be a heavy chore. And where are the brass? Why do they hate the Internet? Gail must be too busy marking up all that endless TV time, or the signature gathering costs from all those petitions that never qualified to waste time on anything silly like that newfangled Internet. I suspect any self respecting union enforcer hates the Internet anyway. It reeks of Democracy and chaos and free speech, almost as bad as the right to have a voice in your pay check dues that Prop 75 stands for. But that's another story.)
There are a number of amusing things about this post, but the one that strikes me of his complete and utter lack of knowledge about what makes a good blog. Hint, it doesn't involve highly positioned folks calling themselves "happy reform elves" or having a blog that doesn't allow comments.
The folks running the Alliance do not hate the Internet, actually it is quite opposite. They have hired two full time people to do online outreach. They hired Joe Trippi to advise the campaign, who suggested implementing a full CivicSpace based online community, instead of having a flat one way Kintera constructed site. The Alliance has not been editing us or dictating our strategy, they have basically let us do our thing and so far it has been a great success. Netroots outreach does not consist of a twice daily blog with information lacking posts from high level staffers.
P.S. Mike I am not going to bash Common Cause, they are my personal friends. I had a great year running their volunteer program, but I believe they settled on supporting this initiative instead of getting their own real reform passed in the legislature. Do notice that they are not pouring support into your pet "reform" like they are in Ohio, I don't see any house parties for reform going on here in California.