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.

The newest PPIC poll is out, and it contains data on a wide range of national and state subjects, including showing that 55% of likely voters support the term limits extension proposal, whereas only 39% currently support getting rid of the 2/3 rule (with small majorities in favor among Democrats, this suggests a lot of voters aren’t informed about the matter).

But some of the most important data is on health care, especially as the Legislature enters into its special session. The poll shows 69% of Californians want “major change” in health care, and is now the second most important issue they feel faces the state, behind the overblown immigration issue.

Specifically, the poll claims 72% of Californians and 61% of likely voters support Arnold’s reform plan. 61% of Californians support AB 8, but only 47% of likely voters back it, with 49% opposed.

However, we should be cautious before reading too much into those results. As it turns out, the way the PPIC asked questions on each proposal was…well…interesting.

Frank Russo at the California Progress Report notes that the AB 8 question had a little addendum to it that might well have skewed the results:

Here is the question asked about the Democratic (AB 8) approach:

“Would you favor or oppose a plan that requires employers to provide health insurance to their employees or pay a fee to the state to cover all working Californians, and that also guarantees health insurance for all children regardless of immigration status?”…

Note that the question asked on AB 8 references immigration whereas there is no mention of immigration in the Schwarzenegger question, even though the governor’s plan would include all immigrants employed in the state regardless of their status. Neither of these plans include all Californians as one might think from the descriptions of both.

It would make sense that AB 8 polled less well than Arnold’s plan, seeing as immigration paranoia remains commonplace in this state. But that’s not all about the wording of the questions that should give us pause. Consider the language used to ask about Arnold’s plan:

“Would you favor or oppose a plan requiring all Californians to have health insurance, with costs shared by employers, health care providers, and individuals?”

They might have well as asked “Do you favor all Californians having pie?” Of course most Californians want some form of universal health coverage, and when it’s described as having shared costs, shared responsibility, that appeals to folks’ sense of fairness.

Arnold’s plan, though, provides all Californians with health insurance merely by mandating that they purchase it. It’s like ordering people to buy food and saying you’ve cured hunger.

As I explained in a post back in February, individual mandates are a terrible idea. In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney’s individual mandate plan has resulted in premiums that cost as much as $3000 a year, while at the same time lacking comprehensive coverage. Individual mandates are a recipe for widespread bankruptcy, and what’s worse, they do not come with any firm guarantees that insurers will not be able to continue to deny claims and coverage, as an article in today’s San Francisco Chronicle describes with respect to vaccinations. As SiCKO showed, the problem with health care in America is that insurance is no guarantee you will actually get the treatment you need.

One wonders how Arnold’s plan would have polled if the PPIC had asked “Would you favor or oppose a plan requiring all Californians to purchase health insurance out of their own pocket, without guarantees that the premium will be affordable or guarantees that insurers will actually provide health care?” California Democratic voters don’t like the idea of forcing people onto the mercy of private insurers, and Republicans tend to oppose government mandates on principle.

Combined with the fact that the PPIC did not ask anything about single-payer, it’s hard to use this poll as a reliable guide to Californians’ attitudes about health care reform. And it’s important we realize that as the negotiations begin in Sacramento over the details of reform.

Hey, those of us who follow state government closely are really, really big dorks. It seems we are in a really small minority in terms of knowing what the state government is up to.  Um, I think many of us knew that (and that at least I am a dork), but I guess it's good to have some numbers behind that.  The numbers behind my dorkiness have always been there for the world to see.  From the Public Policy Institute of California:

Some findings of the current survey:

• Sixty-four percent of likely voters support  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to issue $43.3 billion in bonds to increase funding for education facilities, prisons, water storage, and other infrastructure projects.
• Fifty-two percent of voters admit that they know very little (43%) or nothing (9%) about how bonds are paid for in California.  Six percent say they know a lot.
• The share of residents who describe the state budget as a big problem has fallen 29 points, from 73 percent to 44 percent, since May 2004.

There are some serious ramificiations of this information. Flippy-dippy, ramalama, ding-dong, changity change, oooh- oooh oooh FLIP…

See, if that didn't prove my dorkiness, I don't know what will. But as for the ramificiations of the PPIC poll, well, they are really, really big. I mean think about this, at least half of California voters don't know how the bonds work, yet we just approved a massive bond package. And now he wants more, and he's asking for it through the will of uninformed voters.

See, that's one of the problems of direct democracy. The incredible system of representative democracy that the framers built in the Constitution relies on voters to pick people they trust and let them be the ones that make decisions, but the initiative system requires voters themselves be well-educated on the issues. And when they aren't well, we get srewed-up ballot-box budgeting.

 But, hey, maybe we can get around the road-block to High speed rail, Arnold Schwarzenegger, via the ballot. It looks like people will approve some more bonds. Where's that picture…Ah, yes, here it is:

By the way, doesn't it look like that person to the left of the big credit card has 3 arms? Not that there's anything wrong with that. 

(Nice to have the Senator here. Now go do as he says! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Recently the Los Angeles Times ran an editorial, “For Citizens Only,” on the California Dream Act (SB 160) which misrepresented facts and promoted a policy position out of step with reality and mainstream opinion in California. 

Just one week after the LA Times declared their objection to increasing access to higher education for all Californians, the California Public Policy Institute (PPIC) issued a definitive analysis citing a critical gap in the number of college grads the state will produce.  PPIC warned that California will not meet the economic demand for highly skilled workers with current immigration and graduation rates; they recommended swift action on the state’s behalf to intervene. Additionally, a Field Poll in April 2007 noted that 83% of Californians support creating programs to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants indicating a far more open attitude toward immigrants than the LA Times expressed in their editorial.

The California Dream Act is an appropriate step to address our state’s workforce needs and is in alignment with voter sentiments toward immigrants. As the paper of note in California’s largest immigrant city, we expect more from the Los Angeles Times. 

Please help us express our dissatisfaction with the paper’s position and presentation of facts. It is critical that we set the record straight on SB 160 and make the paper aware of our concerns.

We are asking you to take three simple steps: 

–  Read our response to The Times editorial here:  “Let All Students Dream”  We are trying to earn a spot in the “Most Viewed” stories on the website, so be sure to use the link provided to view the response. 

–  Write a letter to the editor at The Times, expressing your concerns with their position or support for the bill 

–  Forward this to your network of friends, and ask them to do the same. 

As the focus on the topic of immigration intensifies in the coming weeks – both at the federal level and in our own state as the Legislature takes up our three immigrant related bills – we must not let misrepresentations or narrow perspectives cloud common consensus.

If you need additional information on SB 160 contact Eric Guerra (SAC) or Marvin Pineda (LA).  If you would like to help respond to the LA Times editorial or get the word out in support of SB 160 contact Christy Wolfe. 

Please take action today, and thank you for your support. 

Why is there a big gap in 2008 California Presidential Democratic Primary in the two most recent poll results?

Hillary Rodham Clinton leads the Democratic presidential candidates in California, with four in 10 likely primary voters saying they will support her, according to a Field Poll released Tuesday.

That is a higher level of support than she has registered in national polling or in a recent statewide poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, which found her leading with 35 percent.

Chris Bowers has started a new page on MyDD dedicated to the Inflated Clinton Poll Theory and his recent calculations of national polls are in line with what we are seeing in California.

Bowers examines whether Clinton performs worse as poll samples are tightened. Since Field Poll only interviewed Registered Voters, here is the situation at that level.

Bowers summarizes why this debate is important:

Right now, this is still just a theory. However, it is an important theory to test, because accurate reports on who is currently ahead in the race for the Democratic nomination, and how much that person is ahead by, are crucial to developing an informed Democratic primary and caucus electorate. Whether or not we like it, and whether or not we think it should, information of this sort has an impact on the nomination campaign. As such, it would be a disservice to the Democratic primary and caucus electorate if we did not work to make certain they had accurate information on who is winning, and by how much that person is winning. I imagine there are quite a few Republicans out there who feel the same way about their party.

One professional pollster (read through to his comment) suggests that California may be particularity prone to this which could mean Hillary may not even have a lead:

Among the general election voters who claimed they would vote in the Dem primary, Clinton scored eight points higher than among the past primary voters.