Friday, December 20, 2002

posted 12/20/2002 10:55:00 AM by Daniel   0 comments

I missed it by that much...

Okay, so my timing was off. Trent Lott desperately hung on for much longer than I expected. It took 9 days instead of my upper estimate of 6.

But his eventual departure was never in doubt. The pattern was just too obvious. I'll repeat my quote from a previous post on how these things happen:

These events follow a trajectory. The politician lashes out at his critics and denies that he's ever done anything wrong. He insists that he will defend his honor and reputation and never give up. The pressure grows and grows, until it becomes obvious that his ouster is only a matter of time. The media begins to focus on questions of how and when he'll depart. The politician's protestations of innocence grow louder and louder, as does his defiance of all his enemies. But the louder he shouts, the more desperate he sounds. His staunchest supporters distance themselves from him. He appears delusional and cut off from reality, as he frantically tries to convince anyone who will listen to him that he'll never give up.

Then suddenly he cuts a deal and resigns and it's all over....

Wednesday, December 11, 2002

posted 12/11/2002 05:29:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

UPDATE (12/15/2002): Lott chooses the hard way.

He had his chance late Friday afternoon to make a gracious, face-saving resignation. Instead he chose to close his eyes to reality and cling to power to the bitter end. Now his removal will be impossible to spin as anything other than a personal humiliation.

Today Senator Don Nickles called for a new Leadership election. I'll repeat what I said in my Saddam post below: These events follow a trajectory. We're now past the point of wondering whether Lott can contain the damage and survive. We've moved on to handicapping the race to select his successor.

Trent Lott may go out with a whimper, not a bang. But either way, he's toast...

...and for many of the same reasons I describe in my Saddam post below. Except that it's even more predictable here in this country than internationally.

We've got a media feeding frenzy underway. I've closely observed other feeding frenzies, and I've even had some personal experience with them, so I trust my intuition on this one. Trent Lott's days as Republican Majority Leader are severely numbered. The only remaining question is the manner of his departure.

The broo-ha-ha in response to Lott's praise for Strom Thurmond (in the latter's 1948 segregationist incarnation) took several days to bloom within the mainstream press. This is normal. It gives the person caught in the crosshairs a false sense of security, so that Lott was tempted to believe his best course of action was to say nothing and let the controversy fade away. But when an issue resonates, it doesn't just die down. Instead, pundits and columnists and newspaper editorials and politicians pick up on it and echo and amplify it. Hard news stories are written about the controversy, which generates more commentary and more news stories. In engineering terms, it's positive feedback on a massive scale.

The Blogosphere / Internet has acted as a near-perfect echo chamber in this feeding frenzy, led by Glenn Reynolds who's been "flooding the zone". Yesterday's revelation that Lott made similar comments in 1980 constitutes blood in the water. We're clearly past the point of no return. [And I'm running out of metaphors and cliches.]

Trent Lott is now in the desperate damage-control phase, as he puts out more clarifications and denials, and as he appears on conservative talk shows like Sean Hannity's. Behind the scenes he's undoubtedly swearing to fellow Senators that he'll never relinquish his position. And he's probably threatening other Republican Senators that he'll resign from the Senate (costing them a clear majority) if they try to force him out.

But keeping Lott as Majority Leader is a direct threat to those other Senators and their future re-elections. That's an unforgiveable political sin. It's also an immediate threat to their majority control of the Senate, since liberal Republicans like Chafee and Snow can quitely indicate that they'll jump the fence rather than be placed in the position of backing Lott. Other tangential but consequential pressures will come into play, as powerful Republican movers and shakers and big contributors make known their extreme unhappiness. Bush has to worry that the Lott controversy will undermine his legislative agenda and seriously threaten his re-election.

The most likely scenario is that close friends and allies in the Senate will have private conversations with Lott in which they'll tell him that the votes simply aren't there to keep him on as Majority Leader. This is also an indirect way of telling him that their votes aren't there either. Even a barely-competent Majority Leader like Lott has some ability to count votes, and will eventually recognize the inevitable.

If Lott refuses to cave, he'll be dragged kicking and screaming from his post. If he resigns from the Senate he'll be villified by Republicans across the nation as a worse traitor than Jeffords. But in the end he won't be Senate Majority Leader.

However Lott has a long history of caving. I think he'll make the traditional "good of the country" speech: He'll claim to have been unfairly villified, but say that the blown-out-of-proportion controversy has made it impossible for him to continue to be effective in his role as Majority Leader. Rather than let it interfere with the critical goals of the Republican Party and the needs of the country during a time of war, yadda, yadda, yadda, he has decided to step aside and allow Senator X (his hand-picked choice) to assume the reigns.

My best guess for a timeframe is 2 to 6 days.

Friday, November 15, 2002

posted 11/15/2002 06:10:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Saddam may go out with a whimper, not a bang.

Over the years I've closely observed a number of political scandals unfold here in California and elsewhere in the country. For example, California Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush resigned last year rather than face impeachment or recall after his corrupt fundraising practices became public. Locally we had Ventura County Community College Chancellor Phil Westin recently resign after engaging in some wholesale expense account padding and other improprieties. In these and other cases I have noticed that a sure tip-off that the miscreant was about to go was when he started repeatedly denying to the press that he would even consider resigning.

These events follow a trajectory. The politician lashes out at his critics and denies that he's ever done anything wrong. He insists that he will defend his honor and reputation and never give up. The pressure grows and grows, until it becomes obvious that his ouster is only a matter of time. The media begins to focus on questions of how and when he'll depart. The politician's protestations of innocence grow louder and louder, as does his defiance of all his enemies. But the louder he shouts, the more desperate he sounds. His staunchest supporters distance themselves from him. He appears delusional and cut off from reality, as he frantically tries to convince anyone who will listen to him that he'll never give up.

Then suddenly he cuts a deal and resigns and it's all over. Some of his more emotional critics complain that he got off too lightly. But most people are just happy to see him go, and happy to see it happen with much less mess and bother than they had feared it would take.

Saddam Hussein is not precisely comparable to a U.S. politician, and I admit this is stretching the analogy a bit far, but we may be on the verge of a similar situation in Iraq. The U.K. Times is reporting that Hussein wants to pay Libya $3.5 billion to provide a bolt hole for his relatives and associates.

It's a bad, bad sign for Saddam when stories surface about him trying to arrange for a safe haven. His power could begin unravelling really fast.

I know it seems too wonderfully optimistic a scenario, that Saddam's dictatorship might collapse with barely a shot being fired. But the early signs are there.

Wednesday, November 13, 2002

posted 11/13/2002 01:53:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Voter turnout in California was abysmal, with good reason.

On the state level, our choices for Governor were pathetic. Most of the voters who dragged themselves into the polling booths are still walking around a week later with severely pinched noses.

The only state-wide race which was competitive was the contest for Controller. As of this date we still don't know for sure who has won. My own spreadsheet projection indicates that Tom McClintock will cut into Steve Westly's 26 thousand vote election-night margin, but Westly will probably still hang on for a narrow victory. If so, I'm personally very disappointed. But in any case this down-ticket race was not enough to motivate people to get out and vote.

Nor was there much of an incentive to get out and vote in State Assembly and State Senate races, since they were so grossly Gerrymandered as to all but disenfranchised 90% of the population in California. We should institute either a formula-based redistricting system (e.g., start at one corner of the state and computer-generate equal-sized districts precinct-by-precinct, irrespective of city boundaries or political registration or ethnic considerations or any other arbitrary characteristics), or we should hand the redistricting task over to a group of retired judges or other reasonably-objective special masters. But we should not leave it up to the politicians themselves; that's insane.

Last year both Republicans and Democrats cooperated in passing an incumbent protection scheme that made most of the "contests" last week irrelevant. That also meant that the very few contests which were competitive had humongous quantities of money thrown at them from all over the state, simply because there was no point in spending that money anyplace else.

A related issue is the nature of the primaries which select each party's candidates. Should we have open primaries or closed primaries or non-partisan elections or something else?

There's an important freedom-of-association consideration that argues against open primaries: Those people who share a broad set of ideas and come together to form a political party should not have their party's nomination hijacked by other people who either do not share those ideas or wish to actively sabotage that party's candidates. (This is the Supreme Court's basic position.)

However, there is no fundamental reason why elections must be "partisan". We have non-partisan races on the local level. Either the top vote-getter(s) win outright, or there's a runoff between the top two vote-getters (if no one receives an out-right majority). An initiative measure implementing a similar methodology may well be placed on the 2004 ballot.

Why should political parties be enshrined in state law? Political parties can be voluntary associations which endorse and support their candidates, without having any special ballot access or status. And elections can use a system of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to allow voters to rank their preferences and efficiently select a winner, regardless of party.

A good compromise might be to hold closed primary elections as we presently do, to select an official nominee from each political party. But everyone (including the losers at their option) along with independents would still be placed on the November ballot. However, only the primary winners would be able to list their political parties after their names. Voters would then rank their choices using an IRV system to pick the ultimate winner. This preserves the goal of the open primary advocates, to allow all the voters an opportunity to vote for less "extreme" candidates from each political party. At the same time it preserves a "beauty contest" for members of each political party to indicate their preferences.

Such a system would make statewide and legislative races far more competitive, and would motivate a much higher voter turnout. Who knows, it might even result in better people being elected...

One of the few bright spots of California's election last week was the resounding defeat of Proposition 52. Competitive races and superior candidates are vastly better solutions to low voter turnout than election day registration.

Tuesday, October 29, 2002

posted 10/29/2002 04:46:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Expect Bush to keep stalling at the United Nations for another week.

I think it's politically advantageous for the Administration to drag out the U.N. debate until just after the November elections. As long as the situation remains in flux, no voter constituencies are being alienated.

Consider: If the U.N. successfully passes a compromise resolution, conservative hawks will scream that Bush and Powell have gone soft and are letting Saddam off the hook. Especially since France will try to spin the resolution as a diplomatic triumph which at least temporarily blocks U.S. military action (that's the excuse France would give for not vetoing it).

On the other hand, if a resolution acceptable to the Administration fails to pass and Bush washes his hands of the United Nations, the anti-war contingent will howl that the U.S. is defying international law and acting unilaterally. In fact a lot of liberals will be far more upset by Bush's denigration of the U.N. than they are by the prospect of war with Iraq.

But for moment neither side can be confident of the outcome, or know whether Bush will pull off another stunning diplomatic coup. Nor does either side want to be blamed for upsetting delicate negotiations and precipitating an undesirable result. So their voices are relatively muted, while the Administration continues to expound on the danger posed by Iraq. Thus Bush can keep voters' attention focussed on this issue without giving his opponents an opening to rally against it.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, the political need for caution evaporates on November 6th. Close proximity to Saddam Hussein after next Tuesday could result in a dramatically lower life expectancy.

Monday, October 21, 2002

posted 10/21/2002 01:39:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Favre-able prognosis provides perspective.

These days it's all too easy to become caught up in concerns about terrorism, war, elections, corruption, politics, etc. Then something will suddently come along which makes all those matters pale into insignificance, and remind us how important it is to keep our priorities straight.

Just such an event occurred yesterday, early in the third quarter of the Packers-Redskins game, when Brett Favre was sacked and his left knee was twisted in what initially looked like a season-ending (or career-ending?) injury. Could we be witnessing the untimely finish of one of the greatest quarterbacks (perhaps the greatest quarterback) in the history of football?

Since that moment, Green Bay Packers football fans have been collectively holding their breaths (which, given the vast numbers involved, has substantially reduced carbon dioxide emissions), waiting for definitive word on Brett Favre's medical condition.

Well, we can all exhale now (and global warming can resume, except within the environs of Lambeau Field during the prime football months of November, December, and January). Today's MRI test "confirmed the team's original diagnosis of a sprained lateral collateral ligament and showed no structural damage to the star quarterback's knee". Favre is expected to play against Miami in the Monday night game two weeks hence, and thereby add a 165th game to his incredible streak of unbroken starts.

Wars erupt and die down; the economy fluctuates; and Presidents and governors and other politicians come and go.

But there is only one Brett Favre.

Wednesday, October 09, 2002

posted 10/09/2002 01:14:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

UPDATE: The blood pours out of the stump of Simon's leg.

Investigation of the photograph has verified that Davis did not accept the contribution in a government office, and hence stayed within the law. The backlash against Bill Simon is growing (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub described how a flustered Simon screwed himself at the press conference following his debate with Davis:

Simon made the biggest blunder of his problem-plagued campaign. A former federal prosecutor, he accused the incumbent governor of committing a crime. Having never even seen the photo, he lied about possessing the evidence. And he exposed his incredibly bad judgment in trusting a phony law enforcement group and a campaign staff that hadn't done its homework. Anybody looking for evidence that Simon has the experience or temperament to manage the nation's biggest state in tough times certainly wouldn't find it in this chain of events.

+++++++++++++++

Instead of just shooting himself in the foot, Simon blows his entire leg off.

All the papers around California are filled with Bill Simon's latest fiasco: An accusation that Gray Davis broke the law by accepting a $10,000 contribution inside the Lt. Governor's office. Except that the photographic "proof" seems to be crumbling into dust.

Timm Herdt, who is state bureau chief of The Star newspaper (my hometown paper), nailed it when he likened this to a failed reprise of "The Sting". He specifically compared it to the political ploy which propelled Tony Strickland into the State Assembly in 1998.

Let me take this occassion to bask in a little nostalgia for what was, in my opinion, one of the great political coups of all time. Back in 1998 a wealthy businessman named Rich Sybert decided to run for an open Assembly seat in Thousand Oaks, after failing to win two previous bids for Congress. The district leans strongly Republican, and Sybert collared the endorsements of the departing Assemblyman and much of the local Republican establishment (except Tom McClintock). Sybert did have some primary opposition, including a Port Hueneme city council woman and an administrative aide to McClintock named Tony Strickland, but Sybert was widely expected to far outspend them all (which he did) and coast to an easy victory (which he probably would have).

But Strickland's campaign noticed some of its large signs being torn down, and assigned a campaign volunteer to stake out remaining signs in hopes of spotting the vandals. Imagine his astonishment when he observed Rich Sybert personally sneaking around in the wee hours of the morning and ripping off Strickland's signs! Imagine the joy in the Strickland camp as they watched the videotape which the campaign staffer had taken of the vandalism!

Now comes the brilliant part. Tony Strickland held a press conference to accuse Sybert of destroying his signs, but didn't mention the videotape. Sybert indignantly denied the accusation, saying that Strickland must really be desperate to make up something like that. The Los Angeles Times quoted Sybert as further embellishing his story:

"Oh, please!" Sybert had said when informed Wednesday that Strickland had filed a complaint with the district attorney. "I've got better things to do. I'm in bed at three in the morning. I checked with my wife," he added, "and she's pretty sure the guy next to her Monday night was me."

Strickland patiently waited a day while Sybert tied the noose around his own neck and pre-positioned the rope on the gallows. Then the Strickland campaign began distributing copies of the tape to the Los Angeles television stations and other news media.

I have one of those tapes. It's an amazing thing to watch a grown man systematically commit political suicide.

Of course it was all over after that. Sybert had to admit he'd lied, but insisted that neither the lying nor the vandalism should be considered a reflection on his character. Tony Strickland was instantly converted from a young, inexperienced, little-known, long-shot candidate into the frontrunner, while all the other candidates faded into obscurity. Sybert kept spending money and refused to concede the race, and his big-name endorsers stumbled all over themselves trying to excuse and rationalize Sybert's "mistake", but in the end he got only 7% of the vote.

Following the election a Los Angeles Times article titled Sybert a Study in Ambition Unfulfilled quoted Sybert as whinging: "I don't think I was prepared for the brutality of the political process. When I look back over the last six years, it's been nothing but heartache for me and my family."

Bill Simon was hoping to inflict a bit of that same heartache on Gray Davis by "pulling a Strickland". But Davis is a hell of a lot cleverer and vastly more experienced than Sybert. Remember, campaigning and fundraising is Davis' area of expertise. It was wishful thinking to expect to be able to catch Davis in a comparable screw-up.

It was even more hopeless to expect Simon to competently execute such a political maneuver. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know Tony Strickland. Tony Strickland is a friend of mine. And Bill Simon is no Tony Strickland.

Friday, October 04, 2002

posted 10/04/2002 10:48:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

My POSSLQ had her letter published in the Los Angeles Daily News today, attacking Prop 52.

Proposition 52 would allow election-day voter registration in California, and from among its numerous flaws Sandi chose to focus on the following:

Dirtier campaigns

Bruce L. Bialosky is correct that Proposition 52 won't solve the low voter-turnout problem ("Easier registration won't bring more voters," Opinion, Oct. 2). But he misses the worst effect that this measure will have - dirty, deceptive, highly emotional campaigns. Campaigns have become dirtier and more fraught with emotion in the past few decades, and Proposition 52 will only raise that to a fever pitch.

We need more informed voters, voters who care enough to read the literature and study the issues. Not voters who don't care until the very bright advertising people who run modern campaigns insert an emotional appeal in the last days before the election, when it is too late for any counterarguments and too late to refute lies.

Sandi Webb
Simi Valley

This is no small problem with the proposition. I can easily imagine some of the last minute scaremongering that will be used to try to panic people into registering and voting on election day. Push polls and slander will become commonplace tactics (e.g., "Do you agree with candidate X that all the members of your ethnic group should be tatooed on their foreheads so police can identify them? If not, we'll give you a ride down to the polling booth today, so you can register and vote against this Nazi who wants to kill all your firstborn children."). After all, if a candidate is behind in the polls, what does he have to lose by resorting to such tactics?

I have other major concerns with Prop 52. The opportunities for fraud are enormous. No photo ID is required for registration, and same-day registrants do not cast provisional ballots.

Normally in California if a question arises at the polling place as to whether a person is eligible to vote, that person is allowed to cast a "provisional ballot", which is sealed in an envelope containing all pertinent information and explanations on the outside. After the election the County Registrar checks the voter's eligibility (e.g., is the signature on the outside legitimate, was the person properly registered in that county and city, etc., etc.). If it is determined that the voter was indeed eligible, the envelope is unsealed and his or her vote is counted along with the remaining absentee ballots. The system works quite well. But under Prop 52 that firewall against fraud and error doesn't exist. Votes of same-day registrants will be mixed in with everyone elses. So if fraud occurs, there is no way to identify and remove the illegally-cast ballots, and no way to rectify the problem except by invalidating the entire election.

My other objections to election-day voter registration are philosophical. I see no value in encouraging inattentive citizens to vote. High turn-out purely for the sake of high-turnout does not make for better government. Californians have ample opportunities to register to vote prior to the election; we have postcard-registration forms and Department of Motor Vehicle registration. If some people are too damned lazy or uninterested to bother to register ahead of time, then I don't want them making uninformed decisions about who should be elected to office or what laws should be adopted.

I know a lot of Libertarians who are all in favor of Prop 52 on purely pragmatic grounds. They want to appeal to disaffected citizens who are turned off from voting by the corrupt Demo-Republican duopoly. They think that someday they can replicate Jesse Ventura's astonishing success, such that hundreds of thousands of non-voters will suddenly be inspired to flock to the polls, register on election day, throw the rascals out, and elect the Libertarian candidates instead.

It's a nice pipe dream, but in real life it almost never happens that way (and Jesse himself has turned out to be quite a disappointment even to his most ardent former supporters). The people who don't bother to register generally don't care about politics, and making it easier and easier for them to register isn't going to change that, nor will it somehow magically turn them into responsible and thoughtful and well-informed voters.

No, what it does is dilute the votes of those people who do care about government and public policy. I know this isn't the Politically Correct thing to say. But I take my vote very seriously. I don't want it negated by the votes of stupid or ignorant people, or by the politicians who manipulate those people, or by the criminals who want to commit election fraud.

Didn't we learn anything from Palm Beach, Florida? Why should we encourage that crap in California?

Tuesday, October 01, 2002

posted 10/01/2002 07:27:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

FURTHER UPDATE: Western Political Review (10/8/02) reports L.A. Times poll bias.

Knowledgeable political observers keep piling on, as indicated by the following excerpts [the Western Political Review requires a $9.95/mo subscription]:

WesternPR has learned from reliable sources that the Times Poll was weighted in a way to take a larger sample of Democrats. In short, our source maintains the Times used a sample made up of 50% Democrats, well over the registration figures provided by the Secretary of State’s office of 44.73%. That’s just over a 5-point head start if you are a Democrat.

Remember that the Times didn’t represent that they were mirroring statewide registration figures. ... "This is why you can’t take polls at their face value," a highly regarded campaign consultant told WesternPR. "The Times can poll any way they like --- and we all know they like Democrats."

According to our sources, there is one more tidbit of information about the LA Times’ polling techniques worthy of mentioning. When they conduct a poll and get numbers that don’t appeal to them…as they did not to long ago in a similar Davis-Simon match-up, they simply don’t publish it.

If the Times' sample overestimated the Democrats by 5%, it must have also underestimated the Republicans and others/undecideds by 5%. If (for example) the Republicans were underestimated by 3% and the undecideds underestimated by 2%, then that alone would transform Davis' 10 point lead into the 2 point lead I calculated below.

UPDATE: California Political Review shares my doubts about the L.A.Times poll.

John Jorsett posted an October 3rd "Capitol Watch" email from California Political Review which says the following:

Polling experts criticized an L.A. Times poll released this week for its sampling methods and results that starkly contradict other recent surveys. The Times employed "random digit dialing"; calling randomly-generated telephone numbers. Respondents are asked whether they are registered, whether they plan to vote, and about their past voting. This unverifiable information is used to define survey results as polling of "registered" and "high propensity" voters. Both parties' campaign polling uses official voter files to select samples and to categorize voting propensity, not relying on the voters' recollection and honesty. Also, according to the Times Poll, "the entire sample was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education, region and registration." Thus, if the sample's proportion of Republicans is larger than GOP registration, Republicans are dropped to conform.

Polling experts criticized the Times' projection that election turnout will favor Democrats by 13 percent, 53 to 40: four points more than Democrats' statewide registration advantage. The Times Poll also found a 51 percent approval rating for Gray Davis's "handling of his job as governor." Other surveys consistently find lower approval ratings. Last week's Public Policy Institute of California survey found Davis's job approval at 42 percent among likely voters, with 52 percent disapproval.

* * *

Times overstated Democrats' popularity compared with other surveys. Although Gov. Davis has consistently polled at or near 40 percent in several recent surveys, the Times Poll showed him moving up to 45 percent. Polling experts said they believe Davis is between 6 and 10 points ahead; the Times placed him at the high end of that margin, leading 45 to 35.

The Times contradicted findings in down-ticket races. An early September Field Poll showed Tom McClintock leading Steve Westly for controller 42 to 30; in the Times, Westly led 44 to 35. Internal polls give Keith Olberg 2 points over Kevin Shelley for secretary of state; in the Times, Shelley leads by 14. GOP insurance commissioner nominee Gary Mendoza is within 4 or 5 points of John Garamendi in other surveys; in the Times, Garamendi leads by 22.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There's something strange about today's (10/1/2002) Los Angeles Times poll.

According to the L.A. Times, "Gray Davis has opened a substantial lead [10 percentage points] over Bill Simon Jr. in the race for California governor." But is that really true? Other data from the poll shows some anomalous numbers when compared to a Field Poll in early September.

Consequently I've done some statistical analysis which suggests that Simon has sharply narrowed the gap, and trails Davis by only about two percentage points.

Anyone who glances over my blog will quickly see that I am no big fan of Simon, whose incompetence as a candidate is exceeded only by Davis' corruption as a governor. So I'm certainly not about to whitewash Simon's poll results. But I also don't have a lot of respect for the reliability of the Los Angeles Times' surveys, which appear to me even more suspect than the Field Poll.

Here's what's strange: The Times Poll has radically different (and more Democrat-leaning) results for the seven down-ticket statewide races than the Field Poll, as indicated in the table below. A particularly striking example is the race for Insurance Commissioner: Garamendi led Mendoza by 5 points in the Field Poll but by 22 points in the Times Poll. Another example is the State Controller race, where McClintock led Westly by 12 points in the Field Poll, but trailed Westly by 9 points in the Times Poll.

	Vote for Democrat		Vote for Republican		Undecided / other
office	L.A.Times	Field	L.A.Times	Field	L.A.Times	Field
Att. General	53	45	31	33	16	22
Treasurer	47	39	29	37	24	24
Ins Commissioner	51	40	29	35	20	25
School Sup	34	23	15	19	51	58
Lt. Gov	52	46	31	36	17	18
Sec of State	46	32	32	34	22	34
Controller	44	30	35	42	21	28
Governor	45	38	35	31	30	31

Such results make no sense. No one is paying much attention to the down-ticket races, and the candidates are mostly hoarding what money they have for advertising during the final weeks of the campaign. There is nothing that could move the numbers so sharply in favor of the Democrats. One or the other of these polls (or both) must be seriously in error.

Aside from the usual random fluctations (i.e., the "margin of error") that all polling is subject to, there are many other potential sources of error. The exact wording of questions, the training of the interviewers, the times of day when polling takes place, the randomness of the selection method, etc. all play a part. Even assuming that a polling organization is honest and competent (always a debatable assumption), there remains the "secret sauce" that each polling firm employs: Each organization has its own unique weighting formula to try to rebalance the survey sample for age, gender, ethnicity, political party allegiance, geography, and likelihood of voting. Very small perturbations in those formulas can have a substantial effect on the reported results.

Intuitively, the Field Poll would seem to make more sense on the down-ticket races. A 5 point lead by Garamendi is much more believable than a blow-out 22 point lead. And other surveys I've seen indicate that McClintock is ahead of Westly, so a Westly lead of 9 points seems highly unlikely.

So I made the initial assumption that the Field Poll is the more accurate, and that the down-ticket numbers have probably not changed much during the three weeks between the polls. Then I did a least squares fit between the Field and Times results for the down-ticket races, to calculate correction factors. It turned out that you should multiply the pro-Democrat results in the L.A. Times Poll by 0.7871; multiply the pro-Rep results by 1.1632, and multiply the undecided/other results by 1.1944. Then I applied this to the L.A. Times numbers for governor, normalized the results so that the sum equalled 100 percent, and obtained the following:

Davis (at 31.6%) trailed Simon (at 36.4%) by 4.7%, with 32% undecided.

But I hate to make the assumption that the Field Poll is entirely accurate, and the L.A. Times Poll is entirely wrong, with regard to the down-ticket races. So I split the difference by averaging the two polls, and used the averages of the down-ticket races to re-calculate correction factors. Under this assumption, you should multiply the pro-Democrat results in the L.A. Times Poll by 0.8935; multiply the pro-Rep results by 1.0816, and multiply the undecided/other results by 1.0972. I applied this to the L.A. Times numbers for governor, normalized the results so that the sum equalled 100 percent, and obtained the following:

Davis (at 36.2%) led Simon (at 34.1%) by 2.1%, with 29.7% undecided.

I tried various other options in my spreadsheet, such as testing the two subgroups that the Field Poll divided their sample into (they asked half their sample about three of the down-ticket races, and the other half of their sample about the other four down-ticket races). The result correction coefficients were similar, which again suggests that the Field Poll results for down-ticket races are more reliable.

So my surprising conclusion is that the race for California Governor has actually tightened, and may in fact be a statistical dead heat.

Friday, September 27, 2002

posted 9/27/2002 12:05:00 AM by Daniel   0 comments

UPDATE: Appeals Court rules against Davis.

Two months ago I predicted that the American Taxpayers Alliance would win on appeal, and now they have.

The ATA had run TV ads attacking Gray Davis for his mishandling of the California energy crisis, but refused to file reports divulging its financial backers. Davis sued and got a Superior Court judge to order the ATA to reveal the information. This was so contrary to previous First Amendment precedents that I couldn't imagine it would hold up. It didn't.

This is exactly why we have a First Amendment: So people can be free to criticize government officials without worrying about retribution. Does anyone doubt that our corrupt governor would retaliate against his enemies with all the power he had, if only he knew who to target? In fact Davis' lawsuit itself was a form of retaliation, intended to drain ATA's money into legal fees instead of more TV ads. That's why the First Circuit Court dismissed it under the anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation") law.

I love it when I'm right. It helps (just a little) to average out all my bad predictions.

Friday, September 06, 2002

posted 9/06/2002 05:08:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

UPDATE: Columnist Daniel Weintraub says pretty much the same thing in today's (Sept. 22, 2002) Sacramento Bee.

All the attention is focused on California's Gubernatorial contest, but the most important race in California this fall may actually be for State Controller.

The contestants are Republican Tom McClintock and Democrat Steve Westly. What makes this race so important is that the winner will be the odds-on favorite to be elected Governor in 2006. (And without getting too far ahead of ourselves, any California Governor instantly becomes a serious contender in the Presidential derby...)

Steve Westly appears to be a dream candidate. He's young and good-looking. He was eBay's Vice-President of Marketing and Business Development, which provided him with a fortune estimated at $100 million when he cashed out, and he's willing to spend what it takes to further his political ambitions. He has an MBA, he has taught business management, and he has long been active in civic affairs and politics.

If Westly is elected State Controller, the governorship is the next logical step when Gray Davis is termed out in 2006. Sure he'll have to contend with several other big-name Democrats in state-wide offices (e.g., Bustamante, Lockyer, Angelides, O'Connell) who also have their eye on the top spot. But they are all old-time politicians with lots of baggage. Westly will be a fresh face and have a huge financial advantage. I think Democrats will fall all over themselves trying to latch on to a rising political star.

On the Republican side, Tom McClintock is the most principled and articulate Republican officeholder in California. [Full disclosure: I know Tom; he is my State Senator; and I am highly biased in his favor.] Tom isn't afraid to take strong stands on issues, and he loves to root out waste and corruption in government. For example, when Republican Insurance Comissioner Chuck Quackenbush was accused of various corrupt practices, Tom was on the committee which investigated the scandals. Tom helped dig out the truth rather than cover it up, and was largely responsible for forcing Quackenbush's resignation with the threat of almost-certain impeachment.

Tom McClintock has achieved a fair amount of statewide name recognition for his crusade to abolish the car tax (a.k.a. Vehicle License Fee) and to try to cut the bloated state budget. He is directly responsible for cutting the car tax by two-thirds and saving California taxpayers many billions of dollars. Tom writes numerous brilliant op-eds, and is an excellent speaker and debater. Having listened to a number of his talks, I can attest that they are both moving and intellectual; it's not unusual for a McClintock speech to get into a detailed explanation of the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers and how they relate to the proper role of government.

Tom's weakness is that he isn't personally wealthy like Westly, so he'll be at a significant financial disadvantage. He'll try to make up for it by clever publicity and advertising, like his "Cousin Angus McClintock" skinflint commercials.

At the moment Tom is the only statewide Republican candidate who has a better-than-even chance of winning. The just-released Field Poll shows him leading Westly by 12% points. The related story in the Sacramento Bee says that "One campaign likely to attract big bucks and heated debate is that of controller. Tom McClintock, a Republican senator from Simi Valley, leads former eBay executive Steve Westly by 42 percent to 30 percent—with 28 percent of voters undecided."

If Tom can hang onto that lead in the face of a wave of heavy Westly advertising, he might well end up after November as the only Republican to hold statewide office. And if he does get elected, he is going to use his position as State Controller to audit the heck out of every state agency. I suspect he'd also refuse to cut checks for insanities like Gray Davis' secret purchases of electricity at incredibly high prices last year. Tom will expose corrupt and wasteful bureaucratic suckers like sunlight on vampires. [I just saw Blade II the other night and had to throw that in there.]

After four years as State Controller, the governorship would be the next logical step. Tom would first have to defeat Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Republican primary. But after the experience with Bill Simon, Republicans may be leery of risking the nomination of another political neophyte, even one as famous as Schwarzenegger. And it is still conservatives who pick the candidates in the primary; Schwarzenegger is a moderate-to-liberal Republican.

It will be a useful trial-by-fire. If McClintock can defeat The Terminator in 2006, how tough can a Democrat be?

So forget the Governor's race (well, maybe that's asking a bit too much). Focus on State Controller -- that's where California's future is riding.

Wednesday, September 04, 2002

posted 9/04/2002 01:38:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Can it get any more pathetic than this?

Under heavy pressure from religious conservatives, Bill Simon has retracted the questionnaire he filled out for Log Cabin Republicans regarding gay issues. According to this Los Angeles Times article [requires free registration]:

"Someone answered it for me," Simon told reporters during a campaign stop at the Calvary Christian Center in Sacramento. "I did not review or approve that questionnaire." ... Simon spokesman Mark Miner said a campaign employee used an "auto-pen" to put Simon's signature on the response. Many of the Simon responses were written in the first person. ...

So what is the name of the campaign employee who Simon fired for forging his name to the Log Cabin survey? What's that? There is no name? And no one has specifically been fired for the forgery? Is it standard operating procedure in the Simon campaign to answer surveys with no input or approval from the candidate, and then disavow the answers if they generate too much political heat? Does Simon stand behind all the other questionnaires his campaign has responded to in his name, or are those answers also worthless if they turn out to be controversial?

Of course it took a week for Simon to come up with this hokey explanation, during which time the L.A. Times reports that Traditional Values chairman, the Rev. Louis Sheldon, said he had been so upset by the questionnaire response that he spoke to Simon about it at least 10 times over the last six days. In full damage-control mode, Bill Simon is spinning that he "clarified my position immediately." But the San Francisco Chronicle points out that no such clarification came up last week when Simon appeared in Sacramento and San Francisco. At that time, he said he stood by his positions on domestic partners, workplace discrimination and adoption by gay couples, although he said he might re-evaluate his support for a Gay Pride Day.

At least with Gray Davis, you know where he stands on the issues: With his campaign contributors.

Bill Simon's convictions depend on whoever last had access to his auto-pen, and Simon finds out what he believes in when he reads the next day's newspaper.

Thursday, August 29, 2002

posted 8/29/2002 04:56:00 PM by Daniel   0 comments

Although it failed to ask about potted plants, the new Public Policy Institute of California survey out today contains some interesting data. Gray Davis is leading Bill Simon by 11%, a margin that is up from 4% compared to a hypothetical matchup before the March primary. Davis' support has actually fallen from 44% to 41%, but Simon's support has fallen even more, to 30%. [The polling universe consisted of 993 likely voters out of 2014 adults, with a margin of error of +/- 3%, and was conducted between Aug. 14th and Aug. 21st.] Here are the details:

If the election for governor were being held today, would you vote for…
		Likely Voters
		Party			Region
	All							Other
	Likely			Ind/	Central	SF Bay	Los	Southern
	Voters	Dem	Rep	Other*	Valley	Area	Angeles	California	Latino
Gray Davis	41%	69%	11%	31%	25%	47%	50%	37%	58%
Bill Simon	30%	8%	63%	19%	48%	16%	25%	37%	22%
Peter Miguel Camejo	4%	2%	0%	18%	3%	7%	1%	3%	3%
Gary David Copeland	4%	4%	4%	5%	4%	5%	3%	4%	4%
Reinhold Gulke	1%	1%	1%	4%	0%	2%	1%	1%	0%
Someone else	2%	2%	3%	2%	2%	1%	5%	2%	0%
Don't know	18%	14%	18%	21%	18%	22%	15%	16%	13%
*In this table, Californians registered to vote as independents (“decline-to-state”) and those registered with “third parties” are combined. In all other tables, independents are reported separately. Party affiliations for the candidates are as follows: Davis (Democrat), Simon (Republican), Camejo (Green), Copeland (Libertarian), and Gulke (American Independent).

There are a number of noteworthy items here: Simon is doing even worse with his Republican base than Davis is doing with his Democrat base. Davis' strengths are in the extremely liberal greater-San Francisco area and in the Los Angeles area (especially among the Latino electorate). Minor party candidates are taking a significant chunk of the vote, with the Green and Libertarian candidates tied at 4% each. However, Libertarian candidate Gary Copeland is attracting his 4% fairly equally from both major parties and independents and all areas of the state. Whereas Green candidate Peter Camejo gets 2% from Dems, 0% from Reps, and 18% from independents. Camejo is also strong in the San Francisco area (7%) and weak in Los Angeles (1%). Nor is Camejo attracting support based on shared ethnicity; so far he has only 3% of the Latino vote.

If we take these numbers at face value, and set aside for the moment all the usual caveats about rounding errors, standard deviations, subgroup sample sizes, etc., it would appear that Peter Camejo is producing a net drain of 2.5% to 3% from Gray Davis. Gary Copeland's impact is pretty much a wash, or at most a 0.5% net drain from Davis (given that there are more Democrats than Republicans in California).

The conventional wisdom is that Libertarians, who many pundits insist on pigeonholing as extreme right-wingers, draw more votes from Republicans than Democrats. Based on the above data, that does not seem to be the case this year in this race.

However, the convention wisdom is correct that Greens draw most of their votes from liberal Democrats. If Camejo were to gain enough momentum he could seriously endanger Gray Davis' re-election prospects, especially if more of the Latino vote moved in his direction.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this poll is that Bill Simon is still in the running. He's in big trouble, but he hasn't been blown out of the water. Yet.

Which strengthens my theory that if the Republicans had picked a potted plant instead of Simon, Gray Davis would be fertilizer by now.