Today's Field Poll on California Term Limits and Tribal Casino Propositions: Is the Glass Half Empty or Full?

Like any poll, it is subject to error and as they say at the end of their surveys, "Different results could occur because of differences in question wording, the sequencing of questions, the rigor with which sampling procedures are implemented, as well as other factors." They always include a background section providing details about the interviewing method, sample size, question wording, and other technical data.

And one can't just read off the numbers and data they provide without looking at the context as well. There is a science and an art in politics, and history is our guide, and sometimes takes unexpected twists and turns.

So, here's what I see.

Prop 93 on Term Limits

Field's numbers show likely voters indicating they would support this measure 49% to 31% with 20% undecided. This is a shift from the prior poll results in August that found support to be 59% to 30% with 11% undecided. What appears from these numbers is that there has been no statistically significant change in the no vote (the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5% on these questions), but that there is a 10 point drop in support. Where did those voters go? To the undecided column.

Prop 93 is ahead in all regions of the state--except for (somewhat paradoxically) the San Francisco Bay Area, where it is statistically tied with 40% in favor and 29% opposed. It is also ahead in conservative, middle-of -the-road, and liberal voters (with liberal voters showing the lowest support 43% to 36%). Those who have heard of it (19% of the expected voters) support it 47% to 44%, within the margin of error, while those who haad not heard of it, (81% of the expected turnout) support it 50% to 28%.

The measure is ahead with Democrats (44% to 34%), Republicans (57% to 29%), and non-partisan/others (47% to 28%). Republicans have the lowest undecided response--at 14%. Many observers have weighed in, including Mark DiCamillo who is the head of Field, that the Republican support should diminish because the measure allows existing legislators to stay in office longer as part of a transitional period until they reach 12 years in the house they are serving in.

Well, Field specifically asked that question, and it had a limited effect, if at all:

Field asked: "Because Prop. 93 permits a transition period for current members, many of the leaders in the State Senate and Assembly, including Senate President Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez would avoid being termed out of office next year if the term limits initiative passes. Does this make you more inclined to support Prop. 93, less inclined to support it or does it have no effect on you?"

The results: 12% said this information would make them more inclined to support Prop 93, 63% said it would have no impact on them, and 15% said they would be less inclined to support Prop 93.

Much of what happens here, to this observer, will depend on the money spent by the support and opposition, and may turn on the Rubik's cube decision Governor Schwarzenegger makes on whether to support or oppose it based perhaps on what happens with other items such as redistricting.

With a good campaign for it, it could be like the infrastructure bonds that passed last year and actually rose in support as we approached the election. Remember the results in 2004, (most have probably forgotten) when the Economic Recovery Bond Act was polling at just 33% a month before the election and won handily. Just before the election, Field issued these findings, and noted in their press release: "During the past few weeks, there has been a marked increase in voter support for the passage of Proposition 57, the $15 billion Economic Recovery Bond Act. With one week to go before the March 2 statewide election, a new Field Poll completed Sunday shows that voters now favor the initiative by 14 percentage points – 50% to 36%. Just last month the poll found voter sentiments running against Prop. 57, 40% to 33%."

The campaign against Prop 93, from press releases and statements appearing in the press, is based upon a trashing of the Democratic legislative leadership. It may be significant that Field's latest polling was done during and after a barrage of negative press over Speaker Nunez's use of campaign contributions--which the no on 93 folks have not missed a beat on. Nevertheless, in that follow-up question Field asked about the transition period and mentioned Nunez and Perata by name, there was no real boost to the no side in this context.

Much can happen between now and the election and this will be a tug of war or a mud fight.

Tribal Casino Referenda

There are interesting results here as well. 43% of likely voters oppose expanding the number of casino gaming establishments on Indian tribal lands, while 40% say they support it. Then there are another 10% who say "it depends." I called Mark DiCamillo of Field and asked him about that response, and he told me that it was recorded by those taking the survey, even thought it was not given as a choice, because so many respondents replied that way. While the numbers in support and opposition to expansion of casinos is fairly close, and within the margin of the poll, this may indicate that many California voters really want to evaluate this with regard to the specific facts--or at least the ones presented to them by the campaigns and the media.

Voters and all of us can be confused when it comes to a referendum. You vote yes to support the legislature's action and no to overrule it. There are four referenda here. 52% say they would vote "yes" to approve the compacts and 35% say they would vote "no" to overturn them. The yes side is ahead in all regions of the state except perhaps the Central Valley where it is 45% in favor and 40% in opposition.

Since a yes vote is required to approve the compacts, this number is not all that high, as we learned from the last referendum on the ballot, Prop 72 on employer mandated health care, which was ahead by 16 points one month before the election and was narrowly defeated.

It is not surprising that 86% of those who favor expanding Indian gaming say they will vote yes to approve the compacts. What is very curious, however, is that 23% of those who oppose this expansion say they will vote yes, while 64% would vote no. Seems to me that there is more of an opportunity for the no side to convert some of these anti-expansion voters to their side. The same applies to the "depends" responders, who when lumped with the "no opinion responders" say they are voting yes by a margin of 47% to 25%.

There will be a ton of money on the yes side on the referenda from the major gaming tribes. Their ads have already begun. The no side will be well funded but probably to a much smaller extent, by the hotel workers union, some other tribes, and the horse racing industry.

Conclusion

I wouldn't call either of these--the Props or the Referenda either way. As one wag once said: "If we knew the election results for sure, we wouldn't need to have them." There's a lot for both sides in today's glass from Field. Turnout cold be key--and in a Presidential Primary, turnout can be affected by results from other primaries and states--to the degree that voters have not voted by mail earlier.