polling

It is a myth that small businesses oppose comprehensive reform. When a poll by the Small Business Majority point this out, it was only natural to expect that they be attacked by the right. Here are the key findings.

* 80% of those who expressed an opinion felt that employers should pay something to provide healthcare to their employees -- four times as many as those who felt that employers should not have to contribute anything (20%).
* 75% ranked the availability of affordable healthcare as extremely or very important.
* 57% see health care financing as a shared responsibility among individuals, employers and government – three times as many as do not (19%).
* 55% were in favor of paying into a statewide pool that would enable their employees to obtain coverage at favorable rates – over three times greater than those opposed (17%).

The John R. Graham, Director of Health Care Studies at writing at the Pacific Research Institute, a right-wing Corporate think tank called the poll "strange", "bizarre", "wierd" and "absurd". He couldn't for the life of him fathom the notion that business owners want to pay their fair share for health care and were willing to have the government regulate them. He creates a strawman argument around governmental regulations to try and imply that no regulation is the best option. The results of this poll contrast sharply with his world view and he had a difficult time creating an effective response. Graham is basically reduced to calling it names, rather than offering up statistics to back up his arguments.

There has been an incredible shift in public opinion about health care in this state the Field Poll revealed today. The campaign to raise public awareness about the failing health care system has been highly effective, even if voters are more divided about what to do about it. SacBee:

In a dramatic shift in public attitudes, more than two-thirds of California voters now say they are unhappy with the health care system and increasing numbers favor a government-run system covering all state residents, a new Field Poll revealed Tuesday.

The survey of 536 registered voters showed that 69 percent are dissatisfied with the health care system in California, with 42 percent saying they are "very dissatisfied" and 28 percent saying they are content with the current system.

Those numbers -- in a poll taken Aug. 3-12 -- contrast starkly with responses to a similar Field Poll last December. Then, 51 percent of voters said they were satisfied with the way the health care system was functioning, compared with 44 percent who were dissatisfied.

We would need more detailed polling on the subject, but I believe that the campaign has brought more understanding by the public of just how terrible the system is right now and that there is a lot of potential to make it better. Before, people just assumed that was how it was and put up with it, even though many have had terrible experiences with managed care and had been paying increasing amounts for their insurance. Films like SiCKO and other public education programs have brought to the voters attention ways that we can improve the system. While they may disagree on how exactly to fix it, the desire for significant change is great.

Chron:

"This is a clear signal that people want change," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, a Sacramento consumer group that supports both a single-payer proposal and legislation aimed at reforming the current system.

"What you have here is two-thirds of California saying they want a major expansion of group coverage," he said. "People are looking for reform, and they want the government to make the system fair."

Anthony makes a number of excellent further points about this poll in his blog post today.

Skeptics can read the question about "preferences about ways to improve the health care system" that there's isn't consensus about how to fix the health care system: one-third (36%) support "a new state government-run system" (getting a big bump from 24% in December), and one-third (33%) support "reform within the framework of current health insurance system... through shared responsibilities" (down from 52% in December.)

First of all, let's be clear that very few (14%, down from 18% in December) chose the "rely on free market competition" option. Yet that's the rhetoric of the legislative Republican proposals here in California, and of President Bush nationally.

Second, the poll forced a false choice: From my review of other polling, I think that both the "single-payer" option and the "shared responsibility" options would get higher percentages--in fact, majorities--if the questions were put one at the time.

The false choice is also in the wording. Senator Kuehl has written eloquently about how her single-payer bill is "shared responsibility," with individuals, employers, and government all paying into a common system, building on current programs like Medicare. And many of those who want to replace the current system would surely support expanding public programs and placing more oversight over insurers.

Field ran the same question on the type of system voters would support, so it isn't the shift in numbers Anthony is taking question with, but rather the way the whole thing was worded, compared to other polling on the subject. He argues that voters will support both single-payer and what Field calls here "shared responsibility", if they are asked about them separately. Indeed many organizations and legislators are supportive of both SB840 and AB8.

This poll is over all good news for reformers. The long term goal of passing single-payer got a boost, as did the dissatisfaction in the current system. The skepticism of voters that the legislature will not actually pass anything should not stop anything. Where there is a will there is a way. There most certainly is a will by both the legislators, voters and organizations to get something substantial done in the next few weeks.

The existence of the missing budget has not sunk in to the public consciousness, let alone the impacts of the impasse on hard working Californians. Sure there have been a bunch of headlines, and Arnold has been stepping up his rhetoric (though polling numbers do not reflect that yet). However, only 12% of the voting public are paying a lot of attention to the budget. 51% are paying no attention what so ever, or just a bit. Perhaps, voters are so used to this type of a debacle, or they are so removed from the actual consequences from the missing budget. Chron:

"I think in some ways you get immune to it," said 39-year-old Crystal Ockenfuss of Santa Rosa, a participant in the survey. "It's never on time and yet things continue to run." [snip]

Still, the survey found an overwhelming majority - 81 percent - said the Legislature's inability to pass a budget on time is a somewhat or very serious problem.

The findings were not surprising given the often abstract nature of government finance, but Mark DiCamillo, poll director, said voter attitudes could sharpen if the budget impasse continues.

In a poll conducted in 2002 - as the budget deadlocked reached two months old - 57 percent of voters said they viewed the problem as "very serious." The recent poll found 43 percent of voters with the same feeling.

Another reason voters might be less concerned today is that fewer people are affected by the late budget. A ruling by the state Supreme Court in 2003, however, clarified that the state is not allowed to pay legislative staffers, and elected and appointed officeholders are not receiving pay.

The consequence of the disengaged public is that the gang of 14 will not feel much pressure to come to their senses. Indeed, despite Arnold's very public condemnation of the hold-outs, the polling numbers may embolden the Senate Republicans even more. Their base knows what they are up to and are rewarding them. They have little motivation to actually come off the proverbial ledge right now. Unfortunately, it may take more time and this public attention to bring this to a resolution. To that end the Democratic leaders and Arnold need to continue the public education and engaged voters need to discuss it with their social networks.

It is ironic that the day that the PPIC poll comes out showing that Californians want to see their state government be more aggressive in combatting global warming, the Republicans are trying to defang Attorney General Brown's ability to go after local polluters. Despite all of the national magazine covers and international praise, Arnold's approval rating on the environment dropped. It turns out the voters want less talk and more action. Shocker right? Merc:

Californians overwhelmingly believe global warming is a serious threat but they seem less than impressed with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's six-month, highly publicized international campaign on the problem, a poll released Wednesday shows.

Instead, Californians want more progress to protect the environment and say they are willing to pay for it, but have been disappointed so far this year, according to the survey by the San Francisco-based Public Policy Institute of California.

At least some of that dissatisfaction is directed at Schwarzenegger, whose approval rating has slipped 6 points since January, to 52 percent. More telling, his approval rating on handling environmental issues has plummeted from 55 percent in January, when he signed an executive order to curb greenhouse gas emissions, to 47 percent.

The negative press Arnold got around the CARB dustup probably accounts for part of this drop. The Merc's investigation of the flex fuel vehicles didn't help matters. Obviously there is no way to get quick gains on fixing global warming, but Arnold has spent way more time talking about passing AB 32, than he has on enacting the law. The voters are showing their displeasure. Perhaps he will learn to be in Sacramento more and jet setting around the globe less. I know... I have high hopes.

See also, Frank's post on the poll. Plenty more stats.

Today seemed like an appropriate time to release the second half of our presidential poll on the Republicans, given that all of them are attending the debate here. It is split into two polling memos from Mellman, our pollster. The first is on the horserace, post to come later on the issues. The summary says:

Our recent statewide poll shows Rudolph Giuliani currently sporting a 15-point lead in the California Republican primary. Despite Giuliani’s lead, however, the race is far from over. His advantage is based importantly, though not completely, on a malleable factor: the belief that he would be the strongest general election candidate. At present, John McCain, a popular second choice candidate, provides the only serious competition. Furthermore, if McCain were no longer running, his supporters would be more likely to move towards Giuliani, while Giuliani supporters are less likely to identify McCain as their second choice. While Giuliani is in a strong position, there is opportunity for other candidates to break through to California Republicans between now and February 5, 2008; the race is very much still up-for-grabs.

There is talk that unless McCain raises $20 million in the second quarter he will drop out. Our polling makes clear that Giuliani would benefit the most from that development. Considering the manner in which the Republicans allocate their delegates, even those who have lower numbers have an opportunity pick up a few in California.

Giuliani is nearly as well known as McCain and far better liked.

Giuliani not only has the highest overall favorables, but is also well liked by those who know him; his average favorability rating (a figure which takes into account both the direction and intensity of feeling) is 3.03, so that among those who know him, his average rating is just over “somewhat favorable.” Although Romney is less well known than McCain, he is better liked by those who know him (mean favorability of 2.75, compared to 2.70 for McCain). Neither candidate, however, is as popular as Giuliani among those who know them.

For now, Giuliani holds a strong lead, with McCain in second and Romney trailing. The Thompson in this case is Tommy. Obviously, if Fred gets into the race, it will shake these numbers up a bit.

Giuliani’s lead is greater (40%) among those paying very close attention to the primary, while Romney (11%) is actually slightly ahead of McCain (10%) in that attentive segment. Among those paying only somewhat close attention, Giuliani maintains a strong lead with 38% of the vote, while McCain’s support increases to 26%; Romney maintains his third place position at 12%. However, among voters who are not following the election closely, Giuliani’s support declines to 33%, McCain is at 21%, and Romney has just 5% of the vote. Nearly 3 in 10 (29%) voters not paying close attention are undecided.

The race shifts among voters who are familiar with all three top-tier candidates. Among these voters, Giuliani’s support holds steady at 36%, while McCain’s total drops to 15% and Romney’s support jumps to second place with 17%; just 14% of these most knowledgeable voters are undecided. This suggests that part of Senator McCain’s support is based on his higher name recognition, an advantage that could disappear as primary day approaches.

Other highlights from the poll: Giuliani's support is strongest among Californians highly concerned about national security and iraq. McCain does relatively well among voters concerned about health care. Republican primary voters now believe Giuliani has the best chance to win the general. Giuliani and McCain are equally popular second choice candidates.

Much, much more in the full pollster memo on the .

I am outside at my neighborhood cafe, hopped up on ice tea with free refills and wireless. It is that time again. Enjoy the linky goodness.

We are getting a second wave of coverage on campaign contributions today. California was Obama's biggest donor state. Clinton pulled in more here overall $5.1M to Obama's $4.2.

Speaking of donations and locations...the NYT has been having fun with datamashups. They have combined a pretty map with candidate donations. You can see where in the country they are raising the most money from. Its fun to play around with and has a zip code lookup.

Bill Clinton charmed Carla Marinucci at a recent fundraising event in SF.

Tommy Thompson sure put his foot in his mouth today, saying that Jews have a 'tradition' of 'earning money'. Think Progress has the video, Atrios the snark.

A CNN national poll shows the race tightening up in both parties. Clinton and Guilani have lost ground since last month's poll. Speaking of national polls, Chris Bowers thinks they are inflating Clinton's lead.

McCain is having a little trouble with his pronouns and taxes. Hotline has the goods.

The Obama needs substance meme is spreading. I have been contributing to that admittedly, though others have the same issue.

The LADN has a decent profile of Richardson this weekend, titled Richardson walks tightrope as top Latino candidate".

That seems to be most voters' attitude towards the rest of the Bush presidency and at least a partial explanation for the early interest in the 2008 election. Primary fever has hit California now that we have on of the earliest dates in 2008.

Working Californians is going to do some work around the February 5th primary here in California and I will get to do some blogging. Our focus naturally will be on quality of life issues. Before we get to that and as I get up to speed, this thread will bring you the best of what I have found around the internets today. Enjoy!

• The Field Poll is out with their numbers. Chris Cizzilia of the WaPo has an excellent breakdown of the numbers, including the internals.
• The WaPo has a severely underappreciated video series. Today's on the Edward's first campaign appearances since the cancer announcement is fantastic.
• The news of the day is Obama's incredibly strong fundraising quarter. The story is almost as much about the dollar total as the huge number of donors to the campaign. 100,000 donors is simply unheard of at this stage in the game.
• Field released its Republican numbers. No really big surprises there. Giuliani has a strong lead over his rivals.

  Field also ran head to head matches between the Democrats and Republicans. Obama, Clinton and Edwards all would beat Giuliani in the general election. They would all beat McCain too, but their lead is smaller. California is still a blue state. See Frank Russo for more.

• kos adds up the first quarter fundraising in both parties. Democrats lead $78M to $51M.

The campaign that Working Californians was most heavily involved in during 2006 was the Controller race between right-wing Tony Strickland and John Chiang, who was sworn in yesterday. Our independent expenditure campaign, thanks to the support of a diverse list of sponsoring organizations, used a variety of methods including radio ads and direct mail helped carry Chiang to victory. But how effective were we?

The pollster we worked with on this campaign, David Binder Research has done some analysis of our targeting. He writes:

While Chiang ended up winning the contest by approximately 870,000 votes, an examination of the returns shows that his margin was greatest in the same demographic groups and geographic areas that were targeted by the Working Californians independent expenditure.

Final election returns show that Chiang defeated Strickland by a total of 871,702 votes out of approximately 8.4 million votes cast in this race. Despite many pundits predicting a very close race, or even a Strickland victory, Chiang won the contest by a margin of over 10%.

Pre-Election Polling

We did our homework before launching our IEs to figure out the best allocation of our resources. DBR was in the field in during the first and last week in October.

The results showed a race that was still in doubt. In fact, the tracking poll that finished October 30th, one week before election day, showed Chiang with only a 4% lead, which was within the surveys margin of error.

The tracking survey also showed an extremely high number of undecideds, as many voters had not yet focused on this contest.

Additionally, the pre-election surveys found several areas of weakness for Chiang. Specifically, the pre-election polls showed Chiang lagging among Democratic and independent voters, obtaining only 63% of support from Democrats and 31% support from independent and minor party voters.

Further, the pre-election polls indicated that Chiang was underperforming in two major media markets: Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. The October 30th tracking poll showed that only 46% of San Francisco Bay Area voters stated they would vote for Chiang, and only 33% of Los Angeles County voters.

Given this information, the independent expenditure committee decided to target these media markets with radio advertisements and also targeted key demographic groups with direct mail.

Results in Targeted Markets

Election day results show that the two markets targeted by our IE for radio advertisements provided Chiang the margin of victory. Together, Chaing won these two areas by 1.1 million votes.

That adds up to a 17% increase in the Bay area and a 25% gain in Los Angeles.

Binder concludes:

It was appropriate to target these two areas given that each has a proportion of Democratic voters. However, the pre-election polls showed that many Democrats in these areas were unaware of Chiang and were undecided on whether to support him or not. It is highly probable that the radio advertising and direct mail was an essential ingredient to bringing these voters back home for Chiang, which provided him the margin of victory on election day.

This will hopefully be the first of many campaigns where we deploy similar research techniques to inform our expenditures. After everything is said and done, we can share with you exactly why we do those things we do, with posts like this one. As much as I like blogging about polling, we can't exactly be sharing our secrets with the whole world in the midst of a campaign.

We will however, be sharing as much research as possible. One of our chief goals is to ensure public debate is informed by quality research and a clear-eyed understanding of the electorate.

We have more coverage of our poll from the LAT today...

Despite the overwhelming re-election of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, organized labor is feeling pretty cocky about its power and its image. (Labor pretty much did the bare minimum for Phil Angelides, his Democratic opponent, anyway.) A poll conducted in Los Angeles found labor with high marks among voters there and union leaders are pushing for "union-led" solutions on contracts, health care and protecting the city's new living wage.

L.A. does not represent the whole of California by any stretch. But the confidence that organized labor is showing undoubtedly will be mirrored in Sacramento, where lobbyists are closely watching Schwarzenegger's health care proposals and a new commission he started to overhaul the state's troubled pension system.

It is not that labor is cocky, but rather, we know that we have public support on our side. That provides an opportunity to improve the lives of Californians. Take for example health care. The Field Poll shows strong support for significant reform to our health care system. Frank Russo has a excellent post breaking down the results.

Californians have lived through the HMO nightmare. They see extraordinary waste in the system. They have watched the profits roll in for PhRMA, while their prescription costs soar. That has led us to where we are today. Support for labor backed reforms polls much higher than the corporarists who oppose concepts like pay or play.