There a bunch of polling firms in the state, but two are most recognizable, Field and PPIC . Both release their data to the public. Well, most of it anyway. You can actually get Field's cross-tabulations on SacBee Capitol Alert site.Pretty cool if you're as big of a dork as me. But the two groups have very different takes on how best to time the release of their data. Field slowly trickles out each question of a poll. So you get these “Field Seasons” that last for two weeks every few months. First you get Bush's job approval, then you get some environmental question, then you get some initiave. So, they get a fair bit of press coverage from that. Not a bad route, PR speaking.

On the other hand, PPIC allows you to just gorge yourself on data. And this PPIC statewide survey is no different, we've received a tidal wave of data. I'll just take these in the order that they chose. They headline with economic data.  It's not pretty:

Most Californians have a negative outlook on the direction of the state (52%) and the economy (65%) for the next year, and on the impact of the current housing situation on their own finances (52%).

Call it a Big Shitpile, call it whatever you want, but people are scared where the state, and the nation, are headed. They are worried about their jobs, their children's future, oh and yeah keeping their houses.  But, of course, they have something else to be worried about: health care. And yup we Californians are worried about that, for ourselves and for our fellow Californians too:

Most California residents continue to believe that the number of people without health insurance is a big problem (76%).

There's a lot more over the flip.

There's actually a lot more specific data on both healthcare and the economy.  There's data about the mortgage crisis and who thinks they will get hurt by it (renters 62%, homeowners 46%). There's data about the future (65% of Californians think hard times are on the way).

And on health care, apparently 75% of Californians think an individual mandate is a good ides.  Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, there was no question on single payer.  I find it hard to believe a poll can be complete if it only provides one policy alternative.  Why PPIC would neglect to ask a question on single payer baffles my mind, but perhaps not everybody in the state would be so interested in hearing the results.

On the sunny side, Californians apparently like their government more, Perhaps we're being charitable for the holidays, but the approval rating for the Governor jumped to 57% and the Legislature to 41%, with a more telling number for support of their particular representative at 51%. Mark Baldassare and the PPIC crew credit the discussions on health care for the rise. I credit  the fact that the news of the $14 billion deficit wasn't available at the time of these questions.

On the election, it seemed they only polled Prop 93 (disclosure) . 47 percent of likely voters say they support the measure, while 38 percent oppose it. Obviously the nudge below 50% is disappointing, but did I mention the John Laird Project? I'm sure we'll see more numbers on this as we get closer to Feb. 5. I'd still really like to see some numbers on Prop 92 (community colleges). There haven't been much in the way of polls for 92, and the initiave could have a profound effect our future capacity for innovation, our education funding, and our state budget.

On the presidential candidates, Democrats like their choices, Republicans don't. And as much as the hawks in both parties want the discussion to move off Iraq…it's not happening except perhaps in their own minds:

far more Democratic primary likely voters (71%) than Republican likely voters (54%) are satisfied with their choice of candidates. …  The top [issues] are immigration (20%), Iraq (19%), health care (14%), and the economy (10%).

Speaking of immigration, well, Brian Bilbray's rhetoric nothwithstanding, California's want a path to legaization. A full 72% of Californians  support a path to citizenship for those who have been here for at least 2 years. Not sure why they chose 2 years other than the fact that it seems to come up in some of these federal bills. Yet, despite that, there is still a wild logical inconsistency when the issue of drivers licenses come up. 52% do not want undocumented immigrants to be able to get drivers licenses. Because, you know, it's at all possible to work here without driving. So, we get people driving without licenses and without insurance. Sen. Cedillo, we still have work to do. But I'm sure Hillary Clinton and Eliot Spitzer could tell you a bit about that now too.

Finally, there's a bit of polling on the Dirty Trick. Apparently it's 44 yes – 41 No. But that's still without much Dem spending. If it's on the November ballot, it will be crushed.  Bad.

So, go gorge yourself with data, it's far more healthy than doing so with eggnog and latkes.

(Sorry to interrupt the anti-Blackwater high. This article was written by Frank Russo, and originally appeared at California Progress Report. Disclosure: I do some work for Prop 93. Frank does not. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I was taught in law school to treat with suspicion and closely examine any sentence that starts off with the phrase, “It is clear that…” and assertions made without evidence. We know from history that big lies are repeated often enough that they are accepted for the truth.

Every time this year that it appears that the legislature has gotten close to a deal on health care or water or actually made progress on some pressing issue Californians care about, there is an eruption of bald faced statements that “They’re just doing that because of term limits” from the nattering nabobs of negativism.

As we are getting close to the end of this year, I’ve asked a dozen or more observers of the Sacramento scene, what would have been different this year had a proposition to change term limits not been placed on the ballot. The folks I’ve talked to include many who are cynical about the political process–yet none of them have been able to come up with a good answer.

I submit to you that we would have had the same dynamic and the same results had term limits not been on the ballot. The Governor would have had the same insistence on a health plan that’s never had a single legislator supporting it or willing to introduce it. He would have the same position on SB 840–the single payer bill the legislature passed in 2006 and would have vetoed it, as he did to AB 8, the health bill that passed this year. He would have the same position on water and we would be at loggerheads over what to do. We would have had the same budget stalemate. The same bills would have passed and the same bills would have floundered.

The chattering started with the introduction of the bill to move the presidential primary from June to February 5. Taken a look at the political calendar for 2008 lately? It would have been pretty lonely having our contest in June. Did all those other states move their primaries because of term limits too? Would we have moved our primary up had the sugar plums of term limit changes not been in the heads of our legislators? Or would we have left it in June when it would have been like a beached whale without meaning? In past elections cycles, California has moved our presidential primary up to an earlier date. Why did we do it then?

Last year–2006–the legislature adopted an on time budget. When there was a move to try to get a budget on time this year, the tongues of some started wagging about the Democrats in the legislature–“They’re going to cave to the Republicans and sell us out, just to get a budget because of term limits.” We all know what happened.

One denizen of the Capitol surmised there may have been one consequence of term limits being on the ballot. With all this talk about Democrats single-minded about term limits, it may have hardened Senate Republicans into thinking they had a good hand to play and led to the crazy hold up of the budget by the gang of 15 figuring the Democrats would jettison Attorney General Jerry Brown’s ability to enforce California’s environmental laws to appease them and look good for those February voters. But in the next breath he said, there’s no proof of that either.

There may yet be a deal on health and water. But it seems to me that if term limits were uppermost in the motivations of our lawmakers that these would have been sealed in the regular session and certainly earlier than the holiday season. It’s a little late for these to have a major impact on the term limits proposition–with most of the fundraising, support and opposition of organizations, and the like already set. The budget would have been passed in June–before they were dragged through the mud, too.

On the contrary, in milieu of money politics and despite the siren song of Proposition 93, the Democrats have held to the course they would have taken in its absence. The California Correctional Peace Officers, the state’s prison guards were an early contributor to the yes side on term limits changes, but have publicly stated that they have shifted to the no side which they are heavily funding precisely because the legislature in the final hours of the regular session did not pass a stealth bill to deal with contractual problems they have had with the Schwarzenegger Administration.

Do politicians want to win? Sure they do. They want to be popular with the voters. They want to be loved–and appreciated. That was the same in 2006, an election year when they passed global warming legislation, an increase in the minimum wage, and other significant legislation. They’re trying to do the same on very difficult and complex issues–health and water–that have bedeviled many prior legislative bodies here and in other states. Seems to me that their detractors want to have it both ways–if they are successful to dismiss it as improperly motivated–and if they fail to deride them as well for not accomplishing in those areas. Heads I win, tails you lose.

I am voting for Prop 93, not because of its effects on the current crop of legislators, but because of my philosophical beliefs that voters should be able to elect and re-elect those they wish and that those in other districts shouldn’t be able to limit my choice if I am satisfied with my state Senator and Assemblymember. Also, because I’d like to see more experienced legislators based on my observations before and after term limits went into effect. We have one of the most restrictive term limits laws in the nation. I’d like to see legislators with some serving up to 12 years in their house so there will be a longer vision about California.

Those are the public policy reasons I’m basing my vote on, not the mud that is being thrown by those who make allegations without evidence.

Disclosure: I’m quite proud to do some work for Yes on 93. Also in orange.

Last week, I sat down with Assemblymember John Laird of Santa Cruz/Monterey, to talk about Prop 93, the environment, and civil rights.  I’ll be editing up more of the video where we talk about these issues in more detail. However, I wanted to share this video first.

John Laird has a long history of fighting as both a progressive activist and now in the Assembly. He’s worked extensively on promoting a sustainable economy, and has spent much of his time in the Assembly by going through each of California’s non-discrimination laws to ensure that the rights of all Californians are honored. And given his experience as Assembly budget chair, few have the breadth or depth of knowledge about the priorities of the California government. After all, as he told me, the budget is the one document that represents all of our priorities, our hopes, and our dreams for the state. Flip it for more.

So, why does he think that Prop 93 is important? Well, I’m pretty sure he says it better than I ever could, so I’ll summarize it with this sentence. “The outcome depends on … long-term fights to take the knowledge we’ve learned and the relationships we’ve made to accomplish these goals.” See, beyond the personality conflicts of yesterday, today, or tomorrow, we still have the goal of accomplishing progressive action. Yet, as they say, Rome was not built in a day. And it certainly wasn’t built why Romulus was looking for a new gig in Sicily.

Take, for example, Assemblyman Laird’s efforts to resolve the civil rights bills in California code that I discussed above. Each bill requires a conversation here, a little shove there; in the end, it’s a lot of time. And if each legislator has got their eye on their next position up, down, or anywhere around in public service. Don’t get me wrong, I laud their dedication to public service. I simply suggest that we are best served when we have experienced legislators that are focused on accomplishments rather than the next rung.

So, check out Prop 93, and ask questions.  I’ll be around here for a little while or I’m always available at brian AT calitics DOT com. It’s a complicated measure, but it’s one that will help put California in a better position for the future.

(I’ve now included some stuff on Dan Walters. Enjoy. Disclosure: I do work for Yes on 93. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

UPDATE: I saw Dan Walters’ editorial when I wrote this post this morning, but if you’ve read Calitics very long you’ll see that I’m not really feeling his analysis.  But Bill Cavala says it far better than I.  Over at CA Progress Report, Bill lays into Dan Walters:

Dan Walters should have been a writer for PRAVDA.  He knows all the tricks of making propaganda look like journalistic analysis.
Today he twists the report of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies. 

Well, Dr. Cavala should know that few are as adept as Dan Walters at spinning what might look like up to you and me into down for his Bee column.  Just like Kevin Spillane of the official No on 93 campaign, Walters does a fine job of turning what is essentially an endorsement of Prop 93 into something else.  It’s a gift I suppose.  But, more to the heart of the specific issue here is that Walters is still miffed that there is no redistricting reform on the ballot. He apparently thought that the two had to be linked. However, the only person who linked the two reforms was the Governator.  More from Cavala:

But Walters goes further, attempting to bolster the argument of the paid “No” on 93 campaign, which argues that we should condition our term limit vote on an evaluation of the Speaker and of the Pro Tem. Specifically, Walter’s writes, “once the term limit ballot measure was launched, they reneged on redistricting reform, without so much as an explanation”. To whom did they “renege” on such a promise? To Walters?

The dubious connection between redistricting and term limit reform was made by the Governor. He announced last winter he’d support the latter in return for the former. Both Democratic leaders tried to accommodate him – difficult, because he hasn’t a clue as to what “redistricting reform” means”. They failed in that effort, but not “without an explanation”.

The Pro Tem’s efforts stalled because Speaker Pelosi was unwilling to chance her Speakership and Democratic control of the US House of Representatives to the roll of the dice. Her opinion not only carries moral suasion within Democratic circles, it carries the certainty of a highly funded “No” campaign that would have split the party in a Presidential year. Perata ultimately offered to sacrifice the Senate’s redistricting authority over Senate districts and was turned down by the Republicans.

But, including the backstory or a real explanation would take up more than his allotted word limit, and really throw off his rhythm. And you know Dan is always a-rockin’ to the beat. However, instead of picking the facts that work with his opinion, perhaps we’d be better off with “Just the Facts, Dan.”

Original story over the flip.

A friend of mine, Sasha Horwitz, that I graduated from UC Berkeley’s policy school wrote a report a little while ago about term limits. You can download the PDF here. It took a bunch of research from a previous PPIC report, some analysis of some capitol watchers and pundits (like um, the force of nature that is Dan Walters), and synthesizes it in with some original analysis to come up with a finding that Prop 93’s twelve year plan would “improve some of [California’s term limits] structural weaknesses.”

So, it’s hard to see the report as anything but an endorsement of Prop 93’s purpose.  But, as in any academic report, there is a lot of hemming and hawing. That’s just good 8-fold path analysis. Mad Props to Sasha, but it also grants a lot of wiggle room for political spin. You know as somebody who’s worked in politics for a while, and who has been educated in public policy, it’s pretty clear that there are some inherent conflicts there.

And so, we get the spin in Steve Harmon’s MediaNews report. Follow me over the flip…

From that article:

Richard Stapler, a spokesman for “Yes on 93.” “And Prop. 93 retains what’s good about term limits. We applaud the study’s findings.”

Kevin Spillane, spokesman for the “No on 93” campaign, countered that the study affirms term limits’ benefits and debunks some claims made by proponents. (MediaNews 11.26.07)

See? That’s some serious spin. Spillane, who does a lot of work on behalf of Howard Jarvis initiatives, manages to make some lemonade out of those lemons. In the end, what Mr. Spillane is arguing is that we should reject Prop 93 not because it’s bad policy, but because he doesn’t like people messing with his group’s law. He doesn’t dispute the underlying fact that this reports thinks that our system will be better after Prop 93. He just spins some more.

Look, before Prop 93, we had term limits. After Prop 93, we have term limits. This year out of the 80 Assemblymembers, 38 were freshman. What business could sustain such turnover? Yet, that is exactly what Spillane is advocating. How can we expect good results from our government when we don’t give them a reasonable chance of success?