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]
Especially since the poll was conducted Sunday through Wednesday, and Buffet's remarks weren't published until Thursday.
Brandon: 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.Maybe it's because Ahnold decided to get too cute, refuse to answer questions, rebuff his fellow Republicans, hire talking heads and then have one of them diss Prop. 13. All within a week. The election was Ahnold's to lose and it looks like he might have to work for it now. Meanwhile, serious candidates like McClintock can't get any attention. Funny how Hollywood types are ok as long as they look like "Republican winners" and evil as sin if they don't have an R behind their name.
On Aug 11, CNN/Gallup release a poll showing Arnold at 42%.
On the 16th, this Field Poll comes out showing him at 22%....something is very strange.
Can you please provide a link of what Arnold said. Thanks.
That doesn't seem very plausible, in this particular instance. I'm not saying there can't be a backlash against those sorts of things, esp. the Prop 13 issue. But this poll was taken Aug. 10-13. Buffet's appointment, which is the one that really seems to have angered people, at least on FR, was not announced until Aug. 13 (iirc), and the comment from Buffet on Prop 13 was not published until Aug. 14. Given that timeline, it is absolutely impossible for the cause-and-effect relationship you describe to have been responsible.
I'm also skeptical about the suggestion that people were becoming mad at Schwarzenegger because he was perceived as playing footsie with the media. He announced his candidacy on August 6; the snap polls taken within the next few days showed him with a 10-20 point lead; this poll, taken starting four days after his announcement, shows a dramatic drop in support -- and this is attributable to his perceived inaccessability? I just don't buy it. Not that quickly.
Either the Field Poll is wrong, or the early, snap polls were wrong -- or, as Ambrose suggested, the situation is so chaotic and volatile that you can't get an accurate read on public opinion. I'm going to wait and see what other numbers develop before I accept the Field Poll as Holy Writ.
One interesting thing I did find in this specific poll (which does seem to have been likely voters, rather than registered voters; the Post article was just poorly written) is that Schwarzenegger and Bustamante voters are both somewhat soft: 35% of Schwarzenegger's voters say they might change their mind, and 29% of Bustamante's say they might change. But the big news (imho) is that 62% of the supporters of other candidates say they might change their minds. Since McClintock, Simon and Ueberoth are the next three in order of popularity, and all are Republicans, I would guess that this could work in Schwarzenegger's favor: when/if supporters of the trailing Republican candidates come to decide that their guy can't win, they're more like to jump to Schwarzenegger than Bustamante. We saw this happen in the 2000 presidential race: In the final polls the weekend before the election, Nader looked like he was going to do a lot better than he did, but his support evaporated on election day,
presumably because his supporters got into the polling booth and decided they wanted Bush to lose more than they wanted to "send a message", and voted for Gore.
I'm not saying that is for certain going to happen this time; I'm just saying the numbers on how determined supporters of various candidates are suggest the possibility. You can find all the raw data here:
http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2082.pdf
Schwarzenegger's campaign spokesman repudiated the Buffett comments and further pointed out that back in June (that would be BEFORE the recall election was even realized as possibly succeeding) Schwarzenegger attended an event celebrating the anniversary of Prop 13 and is on record supporting it.
Having said that, I've read about the property tax situation in CA and must say it is one more reason I would never live there since we didn't get to stake a claim 20 or 30 years ago and now the newcomers get hosed. Think holding the line on increases is great---think two houses, basically identical with owners paying hugely different tax bills is bizarre.
I hear you, and that's something to be considered. But remember that we usually tend to associate with people of like minds. I don't know who you are talking to; maybe it's a reasonable cross-section that includes a significant number of middle of the road Democrats. If so, what you are reporting is potentially good news for Schwarzenegger.
But I am also reminded of a quote I saw in a newspaper right after the 1972 presidential election, coming from some left wing Hollywood starlet, who said, in effect, "I don't understand how this could have happened! Everyone I know voted for McGovern!"
I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm certainly not dissing you. But give some thought to just who it is that you are talking to about this issue.
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.