Originally Posted By Darkbeer Press Release.... POLL: Two of Four Schwarzenegger Propositions Leading STANFORD, Calif. --Oct. 31, 2005--The second wave of the Stanford University/Hoover Institution/Knowledge Networks (S/H/KN) internet poll conducted during the final week of October shows two of the four propositions supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger with comfortable leads, one narrowly ahead, and one trailing badly. The latest poll results show Proposition 74 (teacher tenure) slightly ahead, 53-47, but with a margin that is within the sampling error of the poll. The two most controversial propositions appear to be heading in opposite directions. Proposition 75 (public employee union dues) has a comfortable lead, 64-36, but Proposition 76 (state budget process) trails by double digits, 45-55. Finally, Proposition 77 (redistricting), supported by most of the state's newspapers and an array of good government groups, leads 55-45. These results appear to be relatively insensitive to variations in voter turnout, but in all four cases, the lower the turnout the higher the support for the proposition. Compared to the early October poll, this more recent wave of the S/H/KN poll shows higher levels of support for three of the four propositions supported by the governor. Support for Proposition 75 (public employee union dues) has declined, but the proposition still has a solid lead. Four other propositions appear on the November 8 ballot. Proposition 73 (parental consent) has a significant lead, 58-42. Two propositions address prescription drugs and both show virtually equal levels of support and opposition. Proposition 78, supported by the pharmaceutical companies, stands at 51-49, while Proposition 79, supported by consumer groups, stands at 50-50. Proposition 80, regulating electric service providers, trails 46-54. The S/H/KN internet polls differ from conventional telephone polls in having respondents fill out a replica of the actual ballot. This procedure offers more anonymity and a closer resemblance to the choice people actually face in the voting booth. It results in fewer undecideds than are recorded in conventional polls. The study results and survey questions are available at <a href="http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/" target="_blank">http://www.knowledgenetworks.c om/ganp/</a>. Methodological Note The second wave of the Stanford University/Hoover Institution/Knowledge Networks poll was conducted between October 24 and October 28 using the Knowledge Networks web-enabled panel, which provides a representative sample of Californian households (see <a href="http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp" target="_blank">http://www.knowledgenetworks.c om/ganp</a>). Of the 1,616 adults invited to participate in the survey, 803 (50%) completed the survey in time for inclusion in the analysis. Of these cases, 585 (73%) were randomly assigned to the condition of receiving the ballot questions. Of these 585 cases, 378 (65%) reported that they definitely intend to vote. The analyses presented in this report are based on the interviews with these 378 respondents. The sampling margin of error for the total sample of 378 likely voters is 5 percentage points. The survey results were weighted to U.S. Census population benchmarks for adults residing in the State of California in terms of age, race/ethnicity, education obtainment, and urban/rural.
Originally Posted By cmpaley Question: where was the survey taken place? Question: what criteria was used to determine who would be invited to participate? Question: WHO sponsored the poll?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Stanford University sponsored the poll The links provided show all the detailed info.... The poll was taken from October 24th thru 28th.
Originally Posted By gadzuux That's odd. Here's a survey that says arnold and his special election are going down in flames ... <a href="http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=641" target="_blank">http://www.ppic.org/main/publi cation.asp?i=641</a> (Public Policy Institute of California) Some findings of the current survey 54% of likely voters consider the special election a bad idea. As the election approaches, none of the measures actively supported by Governor Schwarzenegger enjoys majority support among likely voters: Proposition 74 (teacher tenure), 46% yes, 48% no Proposition 75 (use of union dues), 46% yes, 46% no Proposition 76 (spending and funding limits), 30% yes, 62% no Proposition 77 (redistricting), 36% yes, 50% no Approval ratings of public officials among all Californians: Governor Schwarzenegger, 33% approve, 58% disapprove California Legislature, 25% approve, 56% disapprove President Bush, 36% approve, 60% disapprove U.S. Congress, 42% approve, 46% disapprove Senator Feinstein, 50% approve, 27% disapprove Senator Boxer, 48% approve, 29% disapprove Likely voters are very unhappy with the federal government: 74% have little or no confidence in the federal government to do what is right 69% believe that the federal government wastes a lot of tax dollars.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Also this from today's SF Chronicle - (BTW - the "hoover institution" is part of stanford) <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/31/BAGT3FGDR41.DTL" target="_blank">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/arti cle.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/31/BAGT3FGDR41.DTL</a> It doesn't take a political genius to see that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a major fight on his hands when it comes to the Nov. 8 special election. Republican leaders we've talked to are already conceding that Proposition 76, Arnold's bid to gain budget-cutting control from the Legislature, is going poorly. In the same breath, however, they say their tracking polls still show competitive numbers for Proposition 74 (lengthening the time for teachers to gain tenure), Proposition 77 (handing redistricting to retired judges) and Proposition 75 (making it tougher for unions to raise money for political purposes). "We could wind up with a very costly and bloody draw, with both sides winning two,'' said Bill Whalen, a Republican and research fellow at the Hoover Institution. One of the biggest problems for Schwarzenegger this time is himself. Seems the glow of Hollywood is gone, replaced by good old-fashioned partisan politics. As Mark DiCamillo of the nonpartisan Field Poll noted, "There's a negative drag created by Arnold that spans across all of the propositions that he's supporting, and it doesn't leave a lot of room for him to move." No -- but Republicans such as Whalen note that Arnold has a history of coming from behind and there is still an Arnold vote out there, even if those folks don't admit it to pollsters. There's no denying that winning this pack of initiatives is proving to be tougher than anyone with the governor ever imagined. Reliable sources tell us that Team Arnold isn't raising nearly the megabucks it had expected, and is having to work overtime to play catch-up with the unions. "I don't know if he's got a fund-raiser every night, but he's got one damn near every night,'' said one big-dollar supporter who has spent the last couple of months dialing for Arnold. The shortage of money to get his message out also explains why Schwarzenegger held a series of town-hall meetings -- many of them airing on local TV stations -- up and down the state this past week.
Originally Posted By gadzuux From today's SF Chronicle - >> <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/02/BAGKAFHFLI1.DTL" target="_blank">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/arti cle.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/02/BAGKAFHFLI1.DTL</a> << The answer's always no: Voters appear ready to deliver one giant "No!" next week -- and not just to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Polls show all the measures on the special election ballot heading for defeat, including the prescription-drug and energy-regulation proposals that were put on the ballot by consumer groups. "We might have an 0-and-8 election here,'' said Hoover Institution researcher Bill Whalen, a Republican. "I don't know if it's ever happened before." Whalen isn't counting the governor out, saying it all depends on who shows up to vote Tuesday. Still, there's not much time left, and as pollster Mark DiCamillo of the nonpartisan Field Institute noted, in the past 10 days Democratic voters have been "swinging to the no side." But in this case, it may be "no" to everything. "It's like the voters are saying, 'Nuts to all of you,' '' said one Democratic pollster, who asked not to be named because he has clients in the race. << ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Some of you may recall my comments MONTHS ago about arnold's "special election" . . . Vote "no" - doesn't matter what it's for. Deceptive politicians like to throw these "special elections" with the hope of a low turn-out, in an effort to sqeeze through bad laws that otherwise couldn't pass muster. My belief hasn't changed since then - vote "no" - doesn't matter what it's for.
Originally Posted By cmpaley I think it would be interesting if everything got turned down. It would basically turn out that Schwarzenegger really DID waste $50 million of money that we don't have on an election that wasn't necessary and nobody wanted. Now before anyone tries the "status quo" talking point, I don't think anyone things that things are just hunky dory the way they are. The problem is that there was only two choices given: flawed proposals or the status quo. We shall see what happens, though.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Yeah - if schwarzenegger's four propositions go down to defeat, he'll be dealt a body blow that would severely cripple his chances for re-election. Or should I say 'election' - he's never actually run in an bonafide election before.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Yeah - if schwarzenegger's four propositions go down to defeat, he'll be dealt a body blow that would severely cripple his chances for re-election. << I'll be gracious in victory in public, but in the privacy of my home going, "bwahahahahahahaaaa! bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaaa!" as I watch Schwarzenegger crash and burn. ;-)
Originally Posted By cmpaley I'm inclined not to in order to show that I can be the bigger person. But you never know. It all depends on how things go down on November 8...or how November 8 goes down on Schwarzenegger. :-D
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< "We might have an 0-and-8 election here,'' said Hoover Institution researcher Bill Whalen, a Republican. "I don't know if it's ever happened before." cmpaley wrote: Some of you may recall my comments MONTHS ago about arnold's "special election" . . . Vote "no" - doesn't matter what it's for. Deceptive politicians like to throw these "special elections" with the hope of a low turn-out, in an effort to sqeeze through bad laws that otherwise couldn't pass muster. My belief hasn't changed since then - vote "no" - doesn't matter what it's for. >>> I don't know if this has ever happened in California (a substantially NO vote). I remember living in Washington State in the early 90's when something similar happened. And I don't even remember who was behind it - it might very well have been the opposite, with lots of Democratic initiatives on the ballot. The important part was that there was a grassroots effort for a "NO" vote in a very generic sense. I remember seeing all around town in the days leading up to the election all of those yard and telephone poll signs about the election, with a great many of them consisting of nothing other than a great big "NO!", not even referring to any particular issue. I remember the electorate being fed up, and voting most of the items down. I think there's a very real danger of an overwhelmed voter going into the booth and voting a straight NO ticket just in opposition to the notion of a perceived special-interest-driven initiative campaign. And I don't mean to make a comment one way or the other on the merits of the CA initiatives on Nov 8 - I really don't know much about them. I'm just making a general comment about what I'm seeing about the election.
Originally Posted By gadzuux BTW - it was me, not cmpaley (hi chris!) that you quoted. That sentiment is exactly correct. The motivation of the (this time) republican party is that they hope that the general trueism holds for this election - that sparsely attended elections usually favor the republicans. Which in turn means this is a cynical attempt to do and "end-run" around the electorate by forcing the state to spend the money on a "special election" that is neither needed nor wanted. None of these issues is so pressing that it required a special election. Further, two of the initiatives are an outright power-grab on the part of the GOP - redistricting to favor their party, and providing more power of the governor over the legislature. Fortunately it seems that both of these initiatives are going for a resounding defeat. The lesson we would hope the politicians learn comes after the election is over. Not only did they get trounced, but they also harm themselves in the next "legitimate" election.
Originally Posted By ElKay Today in the LA Times there was their poll that runs diametrically opposite to Stanford's poll. All of the props supported by "da Gubinator" are trending toward defeat with the exception of teacher tenure. Additionally, the Times survey showed that with the exception of GOP voters, almost every group, especially independent voters give da Gubinator as low a job approval as Bush and this is BEFORE the election. Maybe Stanford Research does just as good in their polls as Stanford's football does on the field. Clearly out of sync with other polls.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Does it matter what they're for? Or are you just an indiscriminate arnold "booster-backer"?
Originally Posted By woody "Does it matter what they're for?" Yes. I already voted absentee. You continue to stereotype conservative voters like they don't know what their doing. HA.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Not really. I'm the one who's advocating a no vote - doesn't matter what they're for. In truth, I can see some value to (74?) and increasing the length of time before teachers can be tenured. But, it doesn't matter - I'm voting 'no'. If this initiative had been presented to me during a regularly cycled election, I may have given it more favorable consideration. But under these circumstances it's more important that the governor be handed a 'matched set' of defeats. So no, I'm not stereotyping you - not when I'm doing the same thing - only opposite.
Originally Posted By woody "But under these circumstances it's more important that the governor be handed a 'matched set' of defeats." This is wrong especially since you think there is merit in those propositions. If you voted for Arnold, he deserves a chance to correct the problems of California. Otherwise, Arnold is not allowed to do his job, which is a shame FOR THE VOTERS. Who would you like to replace him? The alternative is most likely a Democrat who is beholden to the unions. Education will never improve. The budget will get worse. Okay, you want Arnold to fail, but it's a false victory. California will pay the price.
