It would be nice if all the polls agree. They don't. Real Clear Politics has got a chart of the polls so you can see the differences. There are theories out there on why the poll numbers yield such different results:
If the poll is wrong, it’s because telephone polling itself has become problematic in the age of cell phones, call-waiting and answering machines, and because this race, with its unique format and multi-candidate field, is going to be extremely difficult to assess.
Could the LA Times's omission of the replacement candidates have affected their results? After all, of the five polls that have come out thus far, the LA Times has had the lowest pro-recall numbers, and it's the only one that's not mentioned Arnold, Cruz Bustamante, etc.
Then there was the Susan Estrich explanation on Fox News. "This state is 45% registered Democrat so of course Bustamante is going to win." (paraphrased).
It's going to be an interesting fall.
Susan Estrogen is a real genius. The Rats have outnumbered Republican in CA for as long as I can remember... yet, the GOP managed to have Republican governors for 16 straight years during the 80s and 90s.
Posted by: gdr at August 24, 2003 12:21 PM (Permalink)And there was even a Republican majority in the Assembly there for a couple of years, though they still had trouble getting Willie Brown off the Speaker's throne.
Posted by: McGehee at August 24, 2003 01:37 PM (Permalink)gdr: This is true. The Democratic edge over the Republicans in California goes back to the Great Depression, during which California has only had 4 Democratic Governors (including Davis).
However, When Reagan and Deukmejean were winning elections, they counted on a large population of working class white Democrats to defect (the so-called Reagan Democrats), at least on the top part of the election ballot. The 91-95 recession (exascerbated here because of the defense cutbacks) pushed many of the working class Democrats out of state, and most of those who remained have re-registered Republican or independant. As a result, California's Democrats are far more loyal to the top of the ticket than they were back in Reagan and Deukmejen's day.
Posted by: Sean at August 25, 2003 11:30 AM (Permalink)I just took a look at the LA Times poll numbers and noticed something: the percentage of undecided voters (18%) is significantly lower than in the Field poll (31%) and the PPIC poll (46%), which suggests the LA poll is asking "push" questions (not the same thing as a "push poll") designed to "push" undecided voters in one direction or another.
I also noted that there is a negative correlation between the number of undecided voters and Bustamante's support (Bustamante is in the low 20s in the PPIC and Field polls).
Posted by: Sean at August 25, 2003 03:55 PM (Permalink)