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

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

The California Field Poll released results this morning
on how likely voters in the February 2008 election break out on Proposition 93 (the "Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office" initiative) and the 4 referenda to overturn Indian gaming compacts that will receive a proposition number and be on the ballot--unless a court decides otherwise based on the amount of time to collect signatures.

Field shows that the term limit measure has more likely voters supporting it--by 49% to 31% and that the "yes" side on the referenda (to approve the compacts) is ahead 52% to 35%. But that doesn't tell the entire story about the likely passage or failure of these measures where normally support for the yes side on a ballot proposition has to be significantly higher at this stage of the campaign cycle to prevail. It is easier to defeat a ballot prop than to pass one, as all any organized opposition generally needs to do is to sow seeds of doubt and voters either vote no or don't vote at all.

But we've seen exceptions to this in the last election cycle--where the infrastructure bonds were passed, and support actually went up closer to the election, because of a unified campaign by the Governor and Democratic legislators. And because of money.

And so, there are three main articles today on the poll results with headlines, Voters less enthusiastic about changing term limits in the San Francisco Chronicle, Field Poll: Voter support solid for tribes' amended compacts in the Riverside Press Enterprise, and Voters backing tribal compacts which I recommend reading along with my analysis. Headlines don't tell the entire story, and there's a bit more to consider in interpreting this data.

First of all, let me say that the Field Poll is a venerable institution in California, has been surveying the state since 1947 and has operated continuously as an independent, non-partisan, media-sponsored public opinion news service. It is scientific, rigorous, and is considered the gold standard by many observers of all political persuasions, political scientists, and observers of California politics along with a couple of other public polls. It is based in San Francisco, a fact brought out sometimes by the political right in the state when the results are not to their liking. It is a statewide organization and suspecting it because it is in San Francisco is akin to saying the conervative Hoover Institution is liberal because it is in Palo Alto, a strong Democratic voting city.