[Field] Poll Finds Governor's Support Still Eroding [Bustamante-25%.. Schwarzenegger-22%]

New York Times ^ | 8-15-2003 | DEAN E. MURPHY

[deport]

Poll Finds Governor's Support Still Eroding

By DEAN E. MURPHY

AN FRANCISCO, Aug. 15 — A new statewide opinion poll shows that Gov. Gray Davis of California continues to lose support in his effort to keep his job, while Lt. Gov. Cruz M. Bustamante and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the actor, are at the top of the list of possible successors.

Mr. Davis, who faces a recall election on Oct. 7, has become so unpopular among registered voters that the pollsters, Field Research, likened his standing to that of President Richard M. Nixon before he resigned in August 1974.

"We've been doing polling for 56 years, and the current rating of the governor, 70 percent disapproval, is equivalent to the lowest job rating we have ever measured for an elected official," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field (California) Poll.

In the first half of the poll of 1,036 Califorinians, which was released today, 58 percent of likely voters said they favored removing Mr. Davis from office, up from 51 percent last month.

Asked whether they thought he would be recalled, 68 percent said yes.

In the second half of the poll, to be released on Saturday, Mr. Bustamante, a Democrat, and Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, placed well ahead of the 133 other candidates on the ballot. The recall ballot will pose two questions. First, should Mr. Davis be recalled, and second, who should succeed him if he loses?
The survey showed that 25 percent of likely voters favored Mr. Bustamante, while 22 percent said Mr. Schwarzenegger was their first choice. Three other Republicans followed the front-runners, with State Senator Tom McClintock picking up 9 percent, Bill Simon Jr. 8 percent and Peter V. Ueberroth 5 percent.

The margin of error in the poll was plus or minus 5 percent.

Mr. DiCamillo said the ranking of the candidates, even with the margin of error, showed that Republicans voters were dividing their votes among the top four Republican candidates and that Democrats had more or less settled on Mr. Bustamante, the lone prominent Democrat on the replacement ballot.

"It is one of the problems that the state Republican Party has had over the years, that they have not been able to come up with consensus candidates," Mr. DiCamillo said.

That said, the poll suggested that many voters had yet to settle firmly on one candidate. Forty-four percent of likely voters indicated that they might change their mind before Oct. 7.

Peter Ragone, a spokesman for Californians Against the Costly Recall, a group formed by Mr. Davis, said the recall had been so volatile that it would be unwise to place much credence on any poll.

"It is like trying to grab a fistful of water," Mr. Ragone said. "It is so fluid. The polls that have been out there have been all over the map for the past several weeks."

Mr. Davis, in an appearance in Los Angeles, did not talk about the polls. Instead, he criticized remarks by Warren Buffett, a newly named economics adviser to Mr. Schwarzenegger, about property taxes.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Buffett suggested that the state's property taxes were too low, something that Mr. Schwarzenegger's opponents portrayed today as an assault on Proposition 13, the ballot measure from 1978 that limits on property taxes.

"The people spoke," Mr. Davis said, "and all of us who have held office since then have honored the will of the electorate. Lord knows, we have some things that cost a lot of money in this state. But property taxes are not one of them, and no one is about to change that."

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"Around here, we can always tell when someone has no rational way to defend their views. They result to silly personal attacks. Go to the playground and pick on some 6 year olds...you'd be really happy there."

No personal attack. I was just trying to render a somewhat rational diagnosis.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"Those liberal and left-leaning and centrist votes in California will not go over to the conservatives, they will find some other outlet more closely aligned with their views."

Well put.

[Lazamataz]

No personal attack. I was just trying to render a somewhat rational diagnosis.

LOL!

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"LOL!"

Here, let me wipe the spittal from your chin.

[WOSG]

That sounds right. Bush at least went to California to campaign for Simon.

Much of the behavior you mention came from Parsky.

Speaking of Schundler, it's the same deal, it was the state party NJ GOP and certain players that pulled the rug from under Schundler. The RINOs in charge balked at helping him out. He lost the moderate vote and the election.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

To put it another way: What these numbers show is that Bustamante and Schwarzenegger are in a statistical dead heat (with the aparent advantage to Bustamante). The numbers show that it is possible for Schwarzenegger to win without McClintock and Simon votes. There are enough undecideds and/or Ueberoth-type voters to get Arnold to the magic 33% (what it will likely take to win, unless the race coalesces to 2-3 candidates by October 1, in which case 35-37 percent will be needed).

However, McClintock or Simon, even with their votes taken together, cannot hope to win without over 2/3 of Schwarzenegger votes going to them. Schwarzenegger is only getting a bit over a third of Republican voters right now. So how on earth can McClintock or Simon hope to draw 2/3 of Arnold's votes to them...given that most of Arnold's votes are from centrist/left Independents and Democrats???

[WOSG]

First think I look for in a candidate is whether he can win. Once I find that quality, I stop bitching about the others that don't matter.

So you voted for Clinton in 1996 and not that loser Bob Dole?

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"So you voted for Clinton in 1996 and not that loser Bob Dole?"

Clever, but no, I didn't vote for Dole IN THE PRIMARY. I did in the general election. When this election presents only two candidates on the ballot, come talk to me.

[The Old Hoosier]

NO, the alternative is someone who will do something about illegal immigration in California instead of just talking about it.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

I agree with your analysis completely. However, given the poor campaigns run by Simon/McClintock last year, I'm sure their philosophy is going to be to go after Arnold, ignoring you point that they can't get his votes. They'll move voters from Arnold not to them, but to Bustamonte. Thus, the democrats will retain power.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"NO, the alternative is someone who will do something about illegal immigration in California instead of just talking about it."

I dont know why I even bother with you. Have you read the constitution? The court cases? Immigration, whether legal or illegal is strictly a matter of the FEDERAL government. Asking or expecting a candidate for Governor to do something about illegals is about as ignorant as asking your child to appoint you to the supreme court.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Well, actually I would doubt (just a guess here) that much more than maybe 5% of Arnold's current 22% would switch to Bustamante...and maybe even less. But if even 3% switched from Arnold to Bustamante, that would get Bustamante perilously close to the magic number right there. Bustamante will probably pick up votes from the many, many minor Democrat and Green voters if it appears he chance to win...and he will get his portion of the Independents (even just another 3% would be enough for him, if Arnold imploded).

But the point really is, not enough of those Arnold voters would go over to the Conservative(s) in the race to make them competitive with Bustamante (they'd need a huge share of them).

Arnold is bringing people over to the "R" side who otherwise would not vote "R". Since Conservatives in California are only a faction, with no chance of creating the plurality necessary to win outright, their decision is this: Throw support behind one of the main candidates (Bustamante or Schwarzenegger) and attempt to influence that candidate in their direction with their votes, or sit the election out in effect and take their 20% of the vote out of the decision process. In other words: lose influence on purpose, or lose influence now hoping that in election cycles in the future, disaster will be so great that the population will turn toward "extremism" (conservatism is extremism to the California population, odd as that sounds) for their answers.

This is essentially the same calculation that relatively small, but still important, movements and parties need to make in parliamentary-type elections. Do you exert influence from inside the tent...or foment insurrection from outside?

[The Old Hoosier]

Immigration is a federal issue. Free state services for illegals is a state issue.

Also, state authorities can cooperate in enforcing immigration laws. Some do, California currently does not.

YOU should read the preposterous prop 187 decision, and learn a bit about our immigration laws before you call me ignorant. You are far too emotionally invested in Schwarzenegger.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"YOU should read the preposterous prop 187 decision, and learn a bit about our immigration laws before you call me ignorant. You are far too emotionally invested in Schwarzenegger."

I've actually read a great deal on Prop 187. I maintained from the start it was unconstitutional, and, as usual, I was shown to be correct. Any discriminiation by a state based on national origin is illegal.

[NormsRevenge]

I am a political consultant actually. I have met Bill Simon on 4 occasions, and was unimpressed every time, although I wouldn't throw his wife out of bed.

---

I've met him once, a handshake and exchange of support, nothing more.

Most republicans usually come off as stiff for some reason, Simon is no different imro. However, Cindy should consider a run for the House or Senate, she may have political Leggs ;-)

I do question his campaign of last year but must also note his lack of support from the CAGOP bigwigs and the shellacking he took from the Davi$ mediamafiacomplex.

Nothing quite this grand of a Recall has been pulled off before in California, We're making history and hoping it is not bad history but a change for the better.. and sends a message.

And Yeah, I like Tom, If more folks knew what he would do reform-wise etc, it would help drive him to the front,imo.

PS - LOL... I had one bomb left in the rack.. and I dropped it on you... QQps! It's been such a target-rich environment recently ;-)< Whose side are ya on this goaround 8-?

[rwfromkansas]

Then why has he come out opposing Buffet's hope to raise property taxes?

[WOSG]

"I've actually read a great deal on Prop 187. I maintained from the start it was unconstitutional, and, as usual, I was shown to be correct."

No, you've only be shown to be in agreement with Leftist Carter-appointed Judges. To say 187 is unconstitutional is to spit on the 9th and 10th amendments.

" Any discriminiation by a state based on national origin is illegal."

That mis-characterizes 187. It does nothing of the kind. Whoever replaces Davis should institute 187 as it was duly passed and defend it in court.

[WOSG]

"Clever, but no, I didn't vote for Dole IN THE PRIMARY."


Funny, so you voted for a loser in the primary and are castigating those who are supporting people you think wont win. How inconsistent.


"When this election presents only two candidates on the ballot, come talk to me."

Funny - You're talking like the recall ballot only has 2 names on it.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"Funny - You're talking like the recall ballot only has 2 names on it."

Only two who can win, and a bunch of ankle biters that can keep the democrats in power. Anyone that supports dumb and dumber are in bed with the democrats.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

"No, you've only be shown to be in agreement with Leftist Carter-appointed Judges. To say 187 is unconstitutional is to spit on the 9th and 10th amendments."

LOL you need to actually read things before you cite them. The wording of the 10th amendment goes something like this:

'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

The power over immigration IS reserved to the United States in article I section 8 where congress is given the power to 'To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.'

Ask RJheartburn what happens when you screw with me and try to play 'founding father'. Better luck next time.