Poll: Two drug initiatives and abortion notice measure losing (California)

AP - The Bakersfield Californian ^ | November 2, 2005 | PAUL ELIAS

[calcowgirl]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California voters are increasingly leaning toward rejecting two dueling prescription drug initiatives, as well as an abortion measure requiring parental notification, according to a new statewide poll.

The Field Poll released Wednesday also showed that a pharmaceutical-backed ad blitz is influencing how voters view rival measures addressing drug discounts for the poor, which are both trailing for the first time.

The drug industry has raised $80 million to defeat Proposition 79, which would force companies to discount drugs for uninsured Californians. The industry, led by its lobbying outfit, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, is supporting Proposition 78, which would make such a discount program voluntary.

Much of the industry's money is being spent on a media blitz that is helping sink Proposition 79, said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo.

"The barrage of negative ads seems to be influencing voters and helping to defeat Proposition 79," DiCamillo said.

Put together with a poll released Tuesday, all eight statewide propositions on next Tuesday's ballot are trailing.

The new poll also found that support for Proposition 78 fell if voters knew it was backed by the pharmaceutical industry. In June, a Field Poll found 57 percent of likely voters supporting Proposition 78. That has dropped to 36 percent for and 45 percent against, according to the most recent poll conducted last week.

Voters opposed the union-backed Proposition 79 by a 43 percent to 37 percent margin, with 20 percent undecided. The poll found support for the initiative increased if voters were aware it was backed by consumer groups and labor unions.

"As people find out more about Proposition 79, support is only going to go up," Proposition 79 campaign manager Anthony Wright said. Supporters of Proposition 79 have raised less than $2 million and are depending on a grass roots campaign to drum up support.

If both propositions pass, the one with the most votes takes effect.

"Our campaign conducts nightly surveys of California voters," said Proposition 78 campaign manager Frank Schubert. "The Field Poll is only half right, and that is on Proposition 79."

Also for the first time, more voters appear to oppose than support Proposition 73, a measure that would require parents or guardians to be notified before girls 17 and younger could get abortions. The Field Poll showed the abortion notification measure losing 49 percent to 41 percent. DiCamillo warned that Proposition 73 more than any other will be affected by turnout.

"Voters are very emotional on both sides of this issue," DiCamillo said.

Backers of Proposition 73 said their internal polling showed a majority supporting the measure by 10 percentage points and agreed that the side that wins the turnout battle will likely prevail.

"There's a lot of factors at play right now like voter fatigue and motivation of the base," Proposition 73 communication director Stan Devereux said. "The other side has an uphill climb, their message is harder to connect."

Steve Smith, who leads the opposition campaign, countered that "the more voters find out about Proposition 73, the more they are inclined to vote no."

The Field Poll conducted two surveys, one from Oct. 18-24 and another from Oct. 25-30. A total of 506 likely voters were surveyed in the first poll and 581 in the second. The sampling error for propositions 78 and 79 was plus or minus 4 percentage points, while for Proposition 73 it was plus or minus 6 percentage points.

[calcowgirl]

The poll: http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2175.pdf

[calcowgirl]

	LAT	Field	Field	SHKN	PPIC	SHKN	S-USA	S-USA	PPIC	Field	PPIC	Field
	11/01	11/01-02(2)	11/01-02(1)	10/31	10/28	10/17	10/18	10/03	09/29	09/05-06	08/25	06/23
Proposition 73
Support	n/a	41	45	58	42	54	60	59	n/a	45	44	48
Oppose	n/a	45	43	42	49	46	38	39	n/a	45	48	43
Don't Know	n/a	10	12	--	--	--	2	2	n/a	10	8	9
Proposition 74
Support	45	44	44	53	46	49	53	55	43	46	49	61
Oppose	47	50	47	47	48	51	45	44	47	37	42	32
Don't Know	8	6	9	--	--	--	1	2	10	17	9	7
Proposition 75
Support	40	40	44	64	46	70	56	60	n/a	55	58	57
Oppose	51	50	42	36	46	30	42	37	n/a	32	33	34
Don't Know	9	10	11	--	--	--	2	3	n/a	13	9	9
Proposition 76
Support	31	32	28	45	30	30	54	58	26	19	28	35
Oppose	60	60	60	55	62	70	41	36	63	65	61	42
Don't Know	9	8	12	--	8	--	5	6	11	16	11	23
Proposition 77
Support	34	35	38	55	36	50	54	59	33	32	34	32
Oppose	56	51	41	45	50	50	41	36	50	46	49	46
Don't Know	10	14	21	--	14	--	5	5	17	22	17	19
Proposition 78
Support	n/a	36	39	51	n/a	59	n/a	n/a	43	49	n/a	57
Oppose	n/a	45	38	49	n/a	41	n/a	n/a	38	31	n/a	26
Don't Know	n/a	19	23	--	n/a	--	n/a	n/a	19	20	n/a	17
Proposition 79
Support	n/a	37	37	50	n/a	58	n/a	n/a	34	42	n/a	48
Oppose	n/a	43	39	50	n/a	42	n/a	n/a	40	34	n/a	33
Don't Know	n/a	20	24	--	n/a	--	n/a	n/a	26	24	n/a	19
Proposition 80
Support	n/a	24	22	46	n/a	37	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Oppose	n/a	48	48	54	n/a	63	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Don't Know	n/a	28	30	--	n/a	--	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a

[calcowgirl]

Source	Publication Date	Link
Field Poll	11/02/05	http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2175.pdf
Field Poll	11/01/05	http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2174.pdf
LA Times	11/01/05	http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2005-11/20273268.pdf
Knowledge Networks (SHKN)	10/31/05	http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/appendix%20to%2010-31-2005%20Hoover-KN%20press%20release.pdf
Public Policy Institute (PPIC)	10/28/05	http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_1005MBS.pdf
Survey USA	10/18/05	http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=20451188-1cb5-4da4-b9b1-ed77fb7a688f
Knowledge Networks (SHKN)	10/17/05	http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/appendix%20to%2010-17-2005%20Hoover-KN%20press%20release%20V2.pdf
Survey USA	10/03/05	http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=2acfd89d-dd50-4a58-a207-dc3e0eb76038
Public Policy Institute (PPIC)	09/29/05	http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_905MBS.pdf
Field Poll	09/06/05	http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2169.pdf
Field Poll	09/05/05	http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2168.pdf
Public Policy Institute (PPIC)	08/25/05	http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/S_805MBS.pdf
Field Poll	06/23/05	http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2160.pdf

[calcowgirl]

Ping - FYI

Polls, polls, and more polls!

[goldstategop]

The liberal media has written off the election. I think I'm going to sit this one out. We'll be looking at tax increases next year. After all, something's got to give if voters don't want to cut spending - and voting down more borrowing will help clarify California's choice.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[Jim W N]

73-76 are so down-to-earth and sensible, that if they don't pass, the only plausible explanation is that people have been brainwashed by the lying Socialist-Liberal Media machine.

[EagleUSA]

After all, something's got to give if voters don't want to cut spending -
-----
This is the generic downside in these types of situations -- the selfish fools who vote down spending and tax cuts are the ones that benefit from higher taxation and rampant liberal spending. They do not pay the bills. Enter stage left, the Thugocrats.

[nosofar]

Do you mean not vote at all or just not vote on props 78 and 79? It seems to me the other props are fairly straightforward. ('yes' on 73, 74, 75, 76, and 77).

[calcowgirl]

73-76 are so down-to-earth and sensible, that if they don't pass, the only plausible explanation is that people have been brainwashed by the lying Socialist-Liberal Media machine.

There is very little sensible about Prop 76.

The only reason they need Prop 76 is to authorize the new bonds, defer more expense, and lock in the debt service payments (to allow new infrastructure bonds).

It will not control expenditures. From the campaign manager's own mouth (Tom Campbell):

"The key is not to crank government spending down," said Tom Campbell, Schwarzenegger's former finance director, who left the post to campaign for the initiative. "It's just to spend no more than we have."
San Diego Union-Tribune, October 21, 2005

But Campbell said he has looked forward starting in 2006, which is when the measure would take effect, and doesn't believe that the cap would have an impact on state spending until 2013. "That's because we start with three good years of revenue behind us," he said. "It completely depends on what year you start."
San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2005

See also: Proposition 76 - A Conservative Argument for Voting "NO"

[Avenger]

"Also for the first time, more voters appear to oppose than support Proposition 73, a measure that would require parents or guardians to be notified before girls 17 and younger could get abortions."

I think part of the reason prop 73 is going to fail is due to the definition of abortion part. Not that I disagree with that definition but it seems like something rather tangential to the issue of parental notification before abortion for minors and therefore will raise suspicions who might otherwise support the rest of the proposition. Someone screwed up.

[calcowgirl]

After all, something's got to give if voters don't want to cut spending - and voting down more borrowing will help clarify California's choice.

Unfortunately, our media has once again let us down and continues to present Prop 76 as a spending control measure. Most people will think they are voting for no-taxes and controlled spending, when they will actually enable more spending.

[calcowgirl]

I agree with the language issue. They shouldn't have included any type of controversial language with which the left could launch a plausible attack.

I don't believe any of these polls, anyway. I hope that people have enough sense to see through the propaganda.

[goldstategop]

Indeed. Voters aren't stupid. Campbell admitted his spending cap won't work til the next decade. So why would voters want to have it when in the meantime more will be put on the state's credit card? If there was a real spending cap, that would be another story but as the experience in Colorado yesterday has revealed, maintaining one is a daunting proposition.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[goldstategop]

I wouldn't mind more spending. I just don't think it would go to the things we do need here.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[roylene]

wow, I guess I missed it, I thought the election was next week.

[ElkGroveDan]

I wish I had the time to go over all the problems the Field poll has.

Suffice it to say that the Field poll is almost universally wrong by about 5 points to the left.

[calcowgirl]

I think you can probably conclude the same for the LA Times poll released yesterday (included above).

[calcowgirl]

November 8 - election day.

[newzjunkey]

If you sit this election out because of the "liberal media" you should be sent into exile in Kerry-Kennedy's Taxachusetts with Barney Frank as your representative.

[newzjunkey]

Arnold talked about 76 today with Roger Hedgecock. There was an "alarming" soundbite that he's not opposed to increasing spending (he's against spending caps which he was asked about) but is focused on living within our means.

His point was that 76 will mean that the legislature will no longer be able to raid transportation funds, gas taxes, the education fund and other special funds for whatever pet projects and union boss payoffs they want.

What do you see wrong with restricting special funds to use for those funds actual purposes rather than raiding them?

If infrastruction needs a funding increase because folks in SoCal spend three days per year just commuting two and from work, where is the downside? Where's the downside to a mid-fiscal year course correction?

You're sounding like a spending cap advocate.