Posted on 08/15/2003 10:32:26 PM PDT by DoctorZIn
Edited on 08/15/2003 10:36:34 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 15 -- Before the first television ads have aired, the race to succeed California Gov. Gray Davis (D) if he is recalled came down to just two men, Republican action star Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz M. Bustamante, according to a nonpartisan statewide poll to be released Saturday.
The California Field Poll found 25 percent of registered voters opted for Bustamante followed by 22 percent for Schwarzenegger.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Rumor has it that they differed on a number of issues. Does anyone know what chilled their relationship?
Elsewhere in the article it says "likely voters". I wonder which is correct? If it's a poll of registered voters it's completely worthless, but even if it's a poll of likely voters, I'm highly skeptical. This is a weird situation, and I'm not sure anyone knows what the turn out will really be -- especially on Part 2, where you have to find your candidate on a scrambled list of 135 people.
It seems to me it must be skewed ---- because why dump Davis for Bustamante at all? Why would voters actually want to vote yes on the recall to vote for someone whose worse than the one they'd be recalling?
It would seem that Bustamante's supporters are those who will vote no to the recall ----so if the recall loses, Davis is still in ---not Bustamante. If the recall wins, it's not going to be Bustamante who gets in because they would have voted no to it.
When?
I've noticed a tendency on the Free Republic for people to embrace polls they like without any reservation, and then immediately slam a poll as "biased!" if they do not agree with the results.
There really can't be any better example than this Field Poll. This morning, it showed the recall leading with 59% and Davis holding a 22% approval rating. Not a word is said about the Field Poll's unreliability, poor sample, or liberal bias. Now when this same sample shows that Ahnold's campaign is imploding before their eyes, Field basically transforms into an operation run by Hillary.
Blah.
You don't mess with prop. 13 in California. Buffet/Arnold blew that.
These polls are *WORTHLESS* and *BIASED*. The only poll that *COUNTS* is the poll on *ELECTION DAY*!
There really can't be any better example than this Field Poll. This morning, it showed the recall leading with 59% and Davis holding a 22% approval rating. Not a word is said about the Field Poll's unreliability, poor sample, or liberal bias. Now when this same sample shows that Ahnold's campaign is imploding before their eyes, Field basically transforms into an operation run by Hillary.
I expect this sort of *NONSENSE* from a *McCLINTOCK SUPPORTER*. It doesn't matter what the *FIELD POLL* says. Everybody I talk to is voting for *SCHWARZENEGGER*, and I've yet to meet a single *BUSTAMANTE* voter. I meet a *LOT* of people. If Schwarzenegger doesn't get *AT LEAST* 70% of the vote on *ELECTION DAY*, I'll eat my *HAT*!
This is certainly true. I've seen the same phenomenon on FR that you describe.
But my question remains: Why does the article refer to "registered voters" in some places and "likely voters" in others? And how are they measuring "likely voters"? This is always an important question in any poll, but is especially important in polling done on the recall, because the format is so unusual. For the record, I suspect that the "turnout" on Part 1 will be significantly higher than the "turnout" on Part 2, because I think a lot of people will find it easy to vote yes or no on the recall, but not so easy to find their preferred replacement candidate on Part 2. My guess -- and it is only a guess -- is that people who vote to recall Davis will be more motivated to find a replacement candidate to vote for than those who want to retain Davis. If I am correct, that would seem to work against Bustamante, and the question "Are you likely to vote in the recall election" will tend to overstate Bustamante's support.
But I don't know that I'm right; I'm speculating. I do want to know if this is a poll of registered voters or likely voters, and I want to see the list of questions asked, so I can see how they decided which respondents were likely to vote.
Finally, I would point out that in this particular case, the Field Poll is an outlier. Every other poll since Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy has shown him leading Bustamante by at least 10 points. It may be that the Field Poll has it right, and that everyone else is wrong. Or it may be that there has been a dramatic implosion in support for Schwarzenegger in less than a week. But I think that it is reasonable to be skeptical about this particular article, given all the unanswered questions, and given the fact that it is an outlier. As more polling data becomes available, it will either support or refute this poll, and then we'll have something to talk about.
It doesn't work that way. They can vote "no" on the recall, *AND* vote for Bustamante to replace Davis if the recall succeeds.
Then you'd better start marinating your hat now, so it'll be as tender as possible come election day.
Arnold may well win, but there's *no* way he'll get that much of the total vote. If nothing else, more than 30% of Californians are hardcore enough Democrats that they'd never, ever vote for someone with an "(R)" after their name on the ballot. Even if they don't vote for Bustamante, they'd vote Green or whatever.
If *anyone* gets over 40% in this runoff I'll be amazed.
Accurate? This poll raised eyebrows because it didn?t show the big Arnold lead that was evident in several network polls taken in the past 10 days. Republicans take it as a matter of faith that the Field Poll is slanted toward Democrats. But in the past four races for governor, two primaries and two generals, Field has been spot-on. In this case, I expected it to be a two-man race between Arnold and Cruz, so I am not terribly surprised. But I also think the polling in this race is going to be very erratic because of the unprecedented format of the election and the increased uncertainty about who is going to vote.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/insider/
This poll shows Schwarzenegger's sure thing isn't so sure.
It shows the conservative vote is split, but it also shows the liberal vote is split.
I think this statement is absolutely correct. Those of us who are polling junkies are going to have a field day (no pun intended) the next two months or so, trying to figure out what all the numbers really mean.
Buffet to Arnie................Raise Property Taxes in CA...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.