 |
Arizona's own EspressoPundit Ruminations of an over-caffeinated political junkie |
||||
|
October 31, 2005 Boo!
Casey at the Bat Perusing the Blogosphere this morning, it seems that the focus of the Alito hearings will be his dissent in Casey. More specifically, what are the rights versus the responsibilities of fathers? Fathers currently have no say in the woman's decision to abort a child whom the father wants and the father is forced to pay child support for a child that he would prefer to abort. The "my body, my choice our responsibility" shibboleth deserves some scrutiny.
The Sincerest form of Flattery Here's the Espresso Pundit headline from October 14, 2005... There’s something about Mary--an interview with Mary Peters. ...and here's Sunday's Political Insider There's something about Mary ... She still isn't in the governor's race officially but the political - and legal - buzz surrounding former ADOT Director Mary Peters continues to keep cranking.
A Complex Inferiority The Valley's media elites are simply stunned that Google decided to expand here. When Google Inc. revealed it would bring 600 jobs to the Valley, you could almost hear the skeptics wonder what type of call-center jobs they would be. But when the firm said it envisions a major engineering center drawing mostly on the Valley's abundant and talented high-tech workforce, the naysayers asked a different question: "Why are you really moving here?" Indeed. The downtown crowd can't comprehend why people would actually CHOOSE to move here. Don't those people understand that Phoenix sucks? I mean, haven't they read one word that Jon Talton has written in the last five years? Here's an introspective look by one Republic reporter. Arizona's attractiveness to tech companies may have escaped many Valley residents who see themselves as a community mired in sprawl with an overabundance of low-wage job creation driven by real estate and housing, not to mention a poor public education system. Others, apparently, see the Valley in a very different light. Yes, these "others" would be "people who don't work at the Republic." The "others" would also be the people who create 40,000 jobs a year in this valley--and the people who move here to fill them. Here's how Entrepreneur Magazine summed it up. #1 Arizona Yes, it's a great state. It's got wonderful people, great schools, awesome weather, beautiful scenery and it's actually pretty well governed--despite what you read in the papers.
Speaking of Good Weather Here's a letter from my friend Ed Foster. Ed was the political reporter for the Republic during the time I served in the Legislature. (I believe that is now called the "Jurassic Period.") Greg This is from a NY Times story on pension problems: “In San Diego, pension abuse has effectively bankrupted the city. Thanks to a history of granting sweeter and sweeter pension deals that it has neglected to fund, the city has been forced to allocate $160 million, or 8 percent of the municipal budget, to the San Diego City Employees Retirement System this year, with similar allocations expected for years to come. San Diego has tabled plans for a downtown library, cut back the hours on swimming pools, gutted the parks and recreation budget, canceled needed water and sewer projects and fallen behind on potholes.” Send this to Talton the next time he mentions San Diego’s farsightedness. I’d do it, but I never read him. Ed Foster
Glenn Reynolds on the CIA, Libby and Plame THE BIG LOSER in the Libby affair, it would seem to me, is the CIA. At least it will be if anyone pays attention. Consider: Assuming that Valerie Plame was some sort of genuinely covert operative -- something that's not actually quite clear from the indictment -- the chain of events looks pretty damning: Wilson was sent to Africa on an investigative mission regarding nuclear weapons, but never asked to sign any sort of secrecy agreement(!). Wilson returns, reports, then publishes an oped in the New York Times (!!) about his mission. This pretty much ensures that people will start asking why he was sent, which leads to the fact that his wife arranged it. Once Wilson's oped appeared, Plame's covert status was in serious danger. Yet nobody seemed to care. This leaves two possibilities. One is that the mission was intended to result in the New York Times oped all along, meaning that the CIA didn't care much about Plame's status, and was trying to meddle in domestic politics. This reflects very badly on the CIA. The other possibility is that they're so clueless that they did this without any nefarious plan, because they're so inept, and so prone to cronyism and nepotism, that this is just business as usual. If so, the popular theory that the CIA couldn't find its own weenie with both hands and a flashlight would appear to have found some pretty strong support. Either way, it seems to me that everyone involved with planning the Wilson mission should be fired. And it's obvious that the CIA, one way or another, needs a lot of work.
My personal encounter with the CIA Several years ago I sent the CIA a resume in response to an ad that I saw in the Economist. I didn't get a response and after a few years I forgot about it. In the meantime, I switched jobs and one day I got a call at work. CIA guy: Mr. Patterson? Me: Yes, may I help you? CIA guy: Did you send a resume to the CIA several years ago? Me: Long pause. Yes, How did you get this number? CIA guy: Long Pause (as if talking to a four year old) That's what we do. Nothing came of it. At least nothing that I can talk about.
Why Debate the Issue when you can Demonize your Opponent? Inserted below is a plea from the Arizona Together Coalition, the group that is opposing the Protect Marriage Amendment. (click here to enlarge) Can you imagine the outrage if the Center for Arizona Policy printed the exact same fundraising plea and included Steve May or Kyrsten Sinema's picture instead of Len Munsil? Archives would have to be constructed to contain and preserve the editorial outrage heaped on a conservative who drafted an ad of this nature. Let's look a little closer. Well, if you enjoy mocking Christian conservatives, the cross is in the foreground is a nice touch. And why does the picture have mock tape on the corners? Hmm, perhaps we want to subtly associate the Center for Arizona Policy with the wackos who put up wanted posters of abortion doctors? Well, at least they showed some restraint; Len isn't actually in the noose. So are the editorial writers, columnists and reporters out there sharpening their pens and demanding the withdrawal of this ad, or is this a one way street? UPDATE: OH MY GOSH, IT HAS DEMON ROTATION: I checked back on my site and the picture is now Karen Johnson! How sophisticated is that! All I did was copy the ad and the underlying code came with it. Now I'm going to have to check the site every couple minutes to see who is in the graveyard.
Predictions are Dangerous Things. Here's Sam Coppersmith on the Miers nomination--two days before it was withdrawn. I bet one of my law partners dinner that Harriet Miers would appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that her nomination wouldn't be withdrawn before then. With that in mind, I'm going to go out on a limb in the Valerie Plame, Joe (Liar) Wilson, Karl Rove kerfuffle. Indictments are supposed to be handed up today and I will predict that while there may be indictments on obstruction/perjury issues, there will be no indictments on the underlying charge of outing a CIA operative. That's because Valerie Plame wasn't a CIA undercover operative at the time Robert Novak disclosed her name. The entire affair has been a New York Times/NPR echo fest. The Butler report made it clear that Joe Wilson lied about his findings in Niger and lied about his wife's involvement in sending him to Niger.
I am Shocked, Shocked at this Development... Attorney General Terry Goddard's office has refused to act on a complaint by a Republican gubernatorial candidate who said Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano was improperly electioneering at state expense.
The Gov's office is going to be insufferable. I just know I'm going to be driving down Central and see this picture on a billboard.
October 27, 2005 Read it Here and Avoid the Car Alarm Ads The Capitol will be buzzing about this story in today's New Times. State Republican Senator Jack Harper's enraging a powerful legislator with his determined effort to get to the bottom of a potentially explosive vote-counting scandal at the Maricopa County Elections Department.
Here's a letter about my Clean Elections post (below) Greg, I agree with nearly everything you said under your “Unintended Consequences” entry. You are correct in identifying the fringe element at district meetings. However, you paint with too broad a brush. As the recent chairman of one of the states largest Republican districts I am well acquainted with the culture of precinct committeemen. The vast majority are earnest and thoughtful and only want to do their part to better the state and country. The vast majority have no use for black helicopter conspiracy theories or tall tales of secret cabals. But they do care more about moral issues than your typical chamber type; like family, traditional marriage, and the unborn. In all the grassroots work I’ve done for numerous campaigns I’ve never seen the chamber crowd participate in a phone bank, walk a precinct, or pound signs. So often the precinct committeemen do this work with little or no recognition. Like you I have friends in both groups and like you I know that each group serves an important role in the political process. I’m only asking you to ease up a little on the PC’s, they’re not all wackos. Kirk Adams
Rep. Steve Yarbrough on Napolitano's Intel Claims
An alert reader points out that this was in the
July 29, 2005 East Valley Tribune But the revision of history now that our efforts have worked and will continue to work for other multi-state and multi-national corporations such as Microchip Technology, Motorola, Freescale Semiconductor, and Honeywell, by encouraging similar high quality investment, is remarkable.
HB2139 passed the House Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 21 by a vote of 6-3 on my motion. Rep. Nichols voted with us. Every Republican on the committee voted yes. Every Democrat voted no. It passed the House 31-23 on March 7. Every yes vote was a Republican vote. Every no except one was a Democratic vote. The same pattern played out in the Senate's Finance Committee (5-3) and on the Senate floor (18-7), where every yes vote was a Republican vote and every no vote was a Democratic vote. Then there was a conference committee to address differences between the bills. The Republicans supported the bill as amended. The Democrats did not. Then, on final passage the House voted 39-17 on May 6. Every yes vote except one was a Republican vote. Every no vote was a Democratic vote. Again, the same pattern was true in the Senate (16-10). Even the governor's staff suggested amendments that would have derailed the bill, although she ultimately signed it and was more than willing to bask in the light of the Intel announcement, notwithstanding her having done nothing to help us overcome the pervasive Democratic opposition to this tax relief legislation.
October 26, 2005
Pullen Out... Republican National Committeeman Randy Pullen took his name out of consideration for Arizona's governor's race Tuesday. Ok, it's old news but I couldn't resist the headline.
Unintended Consequences, Or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love Clean Elections. Bob Robb has written the most insightful paragraph that I've read about the Clean Elections system. Paradoxically, the primary effect of public financing has been to increase the influence of social conservatives by enabling them to compete in Republican primaries with business-backed candidates, who tend to be more moderate. The net effect of public financing has been a more conservative Legislature, hardly what promoters intended. Well said. In a pre-clean elections environment, a Republican candidate had to be able to appeal to the party faithful at district meetings as well as the business community at Chamber/lobbyist meetings. A candidate who had little support from the local Party workers couldn't get the core votes or logistical support that it took to get elected. Meanwhile, the candidate who didn't appeal to the chamber crowd had to finance his own campaign and ended up stenciling his signs on plywood. Sure, the occasional RINO would get through the process, but as a general rule, a candidate had to appeal to both groups to get elected. Since a precinct committeeman can get you as many $5 contributions as a CEO or an A-Team lobbyist, Clean Elections has removed the chamber crowd from the equation. Without the moderating influence of the "business community," candidates tend to reflect the values of the hard-core party workers. I've been to plenty of chamber meetings and plenty of district meetings. I have good friends in both groups, but they don't know each other. At a district meeting, you are likely to hear the
calls for lower taxes and fiscal restraint that you would hear at a
Chamber meeting. But you will certainly also hear about the sanctity of
life, school vouchers and the Marriage Amendment. Of course, there will
also be that fringe group that wants to discuss the Trilateral Commission,
Posse Comitatus, The Federal Reserve Board (Unconstitutionality of), The
Mena, Arkansas Airport and the Prescott-based stealth helicopter squadron.
Now that Clean Elections has limited the "special interest" money, the moderates are gradually getting picked off and the open seats are being filled by conservatives. Unintended Consequences in 1986 Bob Robb makes another good point In reality, Arizona has only had a short-lived period of conservative governance in the mid-1990s, under Fife Symington. Ironically, the brief moment of conservative governance to which Robb refers was a direct result of campaign finance "reform" as well. In 1986 proposition 200 created Draconian contribution limits that dramatically limited the power of legislative leaders like Burton Barr and Alfredo Gutierrez. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum and a crop of young Turks capitalized on the sudden absence of campaign money in key races and took out a handful of incumbents. Stan Barnes opened the floodgates in 1988 by taking out moderate Bob Broughton. Then in 1990, David Schweikert and Lisa Graham won in District 28, Jim Buster beat Jones Osborn in Yuma, and Keith Bee defeated an incumbent in Tucson. Gary Richardson took over in Tempe and Ben Benton won a seat in Flagstaff. I spent $1,400, walked door to door all summer and beat Jim Miller in District 26. In almost every case the replacement was more conservative than the incumbent. Most of us were under 30. Keith Bee was 24. Real Reform If you want a centrist legislature that will govern from the middle you will need to re-empower the "special interests" and the business establishment by scrapping clean elections and contribution limits. Keep the reporting requirements and let the voters decide if they think a candidate is too beholden to the wrong contributors. If not, you should probably learn about Posse Comitatus so you and your legislator will have something to talk about.
October 25, 2005 Greene responds to Peters Greg, Just a few comments: The issue of Mary Peter’s eligibility is foremost about the integrity of the electoral process and the right of voters to know that the candidates they support and vote for are eligible to take office. The key point is that we cannot afford to have a candidate run for governor with this kind of cloud hanging over her head. The Democrats will certainly challenge Peters if she wins the general election. In that case, the governor’s race will essentially be decided by Arizona’s Supreme Court. That kind of exposure is not acceptable. The operative facts of Peters’ case could not be any worse. Mary Peters is essentially in the untenable situation of having to convince the public without a definitive determination from Arizona’s Supreme Court that she was a citizen of Arizona while she was, for example, voting for members of the Virginia legislature. A reporter told me this morning that he spoke to a very well known constitutional scholar at ASU law school and his response was something like: Mary Peters has a problem. I hope Mary Peters obtains and heeds an objective, professional legal opinion very soon. It’s time to end amateur hour and get behind a proven leader. John Greene
Mary Peters Responds to John Greene Late yesterday, John Greene questioned whether Mary Peters met the residency requirement for a Gubernatorial candidate. That story is here. I asked Mrs. Peters about Mr. Greene's assertion and received this response. Greg Mr. Greene's press release today will not deter me from considering being a candidate for Governor of Arizona. I have been aware of the constitutional eligibility requirements for some time, and am confident that given all the facts I will be eligible to run, should my family and I choose that course of action. It is not up to Mr. Greene to determine my eligibility. I am sure that Mr. Greene is a successful tax attorney, however I prefer to rely on the counsel of elections law experts as we examine these issues. I was born and grew up in Arizona, and have lived most of my life here. My family has been here for four generations. It is accurate that I lived in Virginia for the past four years as I fulfilled my Presidential Appointment as the Federal Highway Administrator. It is also accurate that while serving as a Presidential Appointee I believed it was my responsibility to obey the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia during the time I lived there. I have to take Mr. Greene at his word that his interest is in protecting the Arizona Republican Party. However, after having placed several calls to him upon receipt of his letter, he returned my calls last Friday. I told him I have been aware of the issues and have been working with my attorney with the belief that I can demonstrate my eligibility to be a candidate for Governor. I explained to Mr. Greene that I would contact him after again talking with my attorney on Monday, and that if we did not agree with his analysis it would be beneficial to meet and determine where our differing opinions were. He agreed to do so. I must say that I am was very disappointed to learn today that Mr.
Greene, rather than keeping his word to again discuss the issues, instead
issued a press release challenging my eligibility. PS - Greene's press release included several inaccuracies He does not correctly quote the constitution I am registered to vote in Arizona The issue with Tony West was not one of citizenship
Greene says Peters Can't Run From KOLD TV 13 in Tucson PHOENIX A candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination for governor says a potential rival doesn't meet the Arizona Constitution's residency requirements to run for state office. John Greene says Mary Peters registered to vote in Virginia and bought a home there with her husband in 2002 while she held a senior Department of Transportation post in the Bush administration. Greene notes that the Arizona Constitution requires that a governor have lived in Arizona the five years preceding election. Peters is a former state transportation director who had been expected to announce her candidacy this week. She did not immediately return phone calls for comment.
October 24, 2005 Jon Kyl holds the key to Miers Future Kly is a: staunchly conservative, lawyer, supporter of the president and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. If he makes the trek up Pennsylvania Avenue--like Goldwater to Nixon--and advises the President to make another choice, it's over. Kyl's questions will be the one to watch.
An Admission Against Interest Here's Richard Cohen--Pro Choice columnist from the Washington Post--on Roe V. Wade. Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument -- but a bit of our soul as well.
I would think the hardest part of being on any governor's staff is getting away with claiming credit for stuff your boss didn't actually do. So how does the Governor oppose tax cuts all session and then claim victory when she is forced to pass them? According to the July 24, 2005 Republic, The Gov's office handled it this way. "I was pleased to spearhead the effort to reduce the business property tax," Napolitano wrote, also listing other tax bills she signed, such as film industry incentives, high-tech start-up incentives and the corporate sales factor. Oops, not subtle enough. Here was Senator Dean Martin's Reaction. Spearheaded? More like "capitulated," at least when it came to the business property tax cut. We'll let Senate Finance Chairman Dean Martin explain: "When did she spearhead it? When she vetoed it the first time, or when she threatened to veto it the second time?" said Martin, R-Phoenix. "She was never in any of the meetings nor was any of her staff. They never helped us get votes, ... never helped us count votes. They were an obstacle through the whole process." But those were little tax decreases. What was the Gov going to do with the big Sales Tax Factor bill that was needed to lure Intel into expanding its Arizona facilities? Here's how the Business Journal covered the negotiations. The proposal has come up each of Napolitano's first three years in office and the Democrat has never voiced support for it. The governor and her staff have had numerous meeting with Intel on the sales factor and expansion possibilities. Efforts to reach a compromise fell apart after the governor's office offered a provision that would hike taxes on defense contractors and limit which companies could benefit from sales factor. Hike taxes on defense contractors? Wow, that's an interesting economic development strategy. So the Legislature played hard ball and the Gov. eventually signed the bill without managing to raise taxes on defense contractors. Then a miracle happened...Intel actually decided to invest a billion dollars in Arizona. Janet Napolitano responded with maturity and class by saying "I want to congratulate Steve Huffman and the Republicans in the legislature who worked so hard to make this happen....they were right and I was wrong." Hah, just kidding. Actually, the Governor was front and center at the press conference.
But she still had a problem. No one was going to fall for the "Spearheaded" trick again, so how could she claim credit for the bill without being caught in another little prevarication? That's where the brilliant staff work comes in. In her press release Napolitano managed to imply that the Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature worked together with her office to get the bill into law. Intel was considering a number of locations for its new plant, including Oregon, Ireland and India. However, our state won out in the end, largely because the company was attracted to a bipartisan tax measure I signed into law last May. Bipartisan? The bill was sponsored exclusively by Republicans. There was not one Senate Democrat who voted for it and all the Democrats in the House...wait a second...Cheryl Chase voted for it. She was the only Democrat in the House or Senate who voted on the floor to support the bill. So the Governor's office is right. This was indeed a bipartisan tax measure and she indeed signed it...eventually. Of course since the only Democrat in the Legislature who supported the bill reregistered as a Republican last week, her staff is going to have to come up with a new press release next time.
October 22, 2005 NYT in free fall... Greg: I am distressed that you have failed to comment on an important and controversial story involving the press. I’m writing because I can no longer contain myself. I refer, of course, to the Judy Miller case. After 25 years in journalism, I thought I had seen everything in newsrooms. But, really, this lady is a piece of work. The management of the New York Times is pretty interesting, too. I didn’t follow this story closely, early on. But I was sympathetic to Judy. (I’m going to refer to her by her first name because, as a former reporter, I feel a bond.) I believe that a free press is essential in a democracy. The idea that a prosecutor would send Judy to jail for protecting a source rubbed me the wrong way, I can tell you. Admittedly, it seemed odd that other reporters were given clearances by their sources to testify, and she was not. But nobody WANTS to go to jail, do they? So I didn’t give that anomaly much thought. Only after her release did we learn that she never talked to “Scooter” Libby about testifying. No, her lawyer talked to his lawyer. His lawyer said, “Sure, she can testify.” But her lawyer thought that his lawyer was really saying, “Nope, Scooter doesn’t want her to testify.” Now, out here in the provinces, reporters don’t typically have personal lawyers. So we would just pick up the phone and say, “Scoot, can I testify?” I guess they do things differently in the majors. Only after spending 85 days in jail did Judy ask Scooter directly if she could testify. Of course, he said yes. Judy must have been disappointed by the welcome she got in the newsroom. The huzzahs were quite restrained, apparently. After her return to freedom, we learned that Judy is something of a prima donna, doing whatever she pleases. Next, we discovered that some reporters refuse to work with her. That’s nice. Then, we were reminded that Judy wrote a number of stories prewar about Saddam’s WMD stash. Oops! Her excuse? “My sources misled me.” Oh, God, that’s awful! Finally, Executive Editor Bill Keller issued a statement to the newsroom, saying that Judy had apparently misled her editors after the subpoena. Judy then issued her own statement, saying she did not, either! Both were duly reported in the Times. Geez. The paper’s public editor (ombudsman) wrote about this Sunday, under the headline, “The Miller Mess.” His final sentence: “It seems to me that whatever the limits put on her, the problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter.” Perhaps she could do the obits from home. Judy has said she plans to write a book about her adventure. It wouldn’t have been much of a book if she hadn’t gone to jail. But surely she didn’t WANT to go to jail. Last week, the Times announced that it planned layoffs in the newsroom. Revenues are down. I wonder where they’ll start… Meanwhile, a bill in Congress would shield reporters from mean prosecutors. I wonder if Judy’s case has taken the steam out of that? Ed Foster
October 21, 2005 Here's a response to an immigration piece I wrote in the Republic...the original is below.
Greg,
Did you see the poll that the Manhattan Institute released yesterday on immigration reform? It seems to contradict your assessment of Jeff Flake's immigration political predicament on the Republic’s blog. Likely Republican voters don’t seem to have a problem with the bill that Flake and McCain are pushing (they actually favor it). There certainly is a Minuteman segment of the party that is opposed to it, but they seem to be a vocal minority of the party. Surely, I’m sure that segment is larger in Flake’s district than it is in the poll sample. But given the main thesis of the poll, the drubbing that Flake gave Stan Barnes last year, the fact that Bush is becoming more vocal on immigration reform (giving Flake any cover he might need), and the fact that Flake’s conservative creds are beyond reproach (unlike Kolbe), I think Flake is in pretty good shape.
Marc Nardy Chandler
Immigration Tsunami
It's rare for politicians to mishandle
an issue about which their constituents care deeply.
It's not surprising, for example, that
Jeff Flake is one of the most conservative members of Congress and
represents one of the nation's most conservative districts. And it's no
shocker that Governor Napolitano has positioned herself as a pragmatic
centrist Democrat governing a red state.
However both Flake and Napolitano are
mishandling the immigration issue. Flake has teamed up with John McCain
and Ted Kennedy on a guest worker bill that's sure to drive a wedge
between him and his base.
And Napolitano, who vetoed the bills that
would have implemented Prop. 200, is now attempting to position herself
as tough on immigration by declaring an emergency in boarder counties
and mobilizing a handful of DPS officers. Napolitano will never
be viewed as tough on immigration and risks shifting the focus of the
race to an issue on which she is weak while at the same time alienating
members of her base.
Politicians thrive by capitalizing on the
mistakes of others, so look to two people who organized Prop 200 to take
advantage of Flake and Napolitano's mistakes. Russell Pearce is likely
to challenge Flake and Randy Pullen is considering a challenge to
Napolitano.
If Flake insists on supporting
McCain/Kennedy and Napolitano continues to make immigration a front
burner issue, they may pay a heavy price.
Here are two updates on the Polling 101 story below Greg, The worst part about the Republic’s story today was placement. On Sept. 29, they did a story about Bruce Merrill’s poll which has faulty methodology and faulty wording. The editors of the Republic placed it B1 above the fold with this as the headline, “Gay-union ban support falls in latest poll”. They also teased it on A1 above the fold to get people to go to it. Less than a month later, they conducted their OWN poll. This is a poll the Republic paid for. They didn’t tease it on A1 and they put it on B13. The only way you are going see this story is if you are casually flipping through the obituaries on a Friday morning. I don’t blame a reporter for this one. Every reporter wants their story covered. This is an editor deciding to downplay bad news for the opponents of traditional marriage. Placement was the real ridiculous aspect of this story. Nathan Sproul Well Said.
Update #2 The Associated Press Gets it The AP (presumably Paul Davenport) covered the Republic Poll story and wrote this article for the Arizona Daily Star. PHOENIX (AP) - Most Arizonans would support a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, according to a new poll. About 57 percent of Arizonans would back an initiative defining marriage as a union between a man and woman, says a poll of 600 residents commissioned by The Arizona Republic. Only 37 percent said they would vote against it, while 6 percent were undecided. Davenport gets it right. The story makes no mention of voters or elections. The questions were asked of "Arizonans" and Davenport attributes the answers to "Arizonans." It's a subtle distinction. When the AP says: About 57 percent of Arizonans would back an initiative defining marriage as a union between a man and woman, He is stating EXACTLY what the poll says. "Would" is the key. If these Arizonans were to vote, this is how they would vote. But there is no indication that they will vote, in fact, it is clear that most of them will not vote and therefore, the poll provides absolutely no insight as to how voters will react to the the ballot initiative. Davenport resists the temptation to speculate, artificially interpret or extend the results. Well done.
OK, what's wrong with this lede? A new statewide poll done by The Arizona Republic indicates most voters would support a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, The Republic poll of 600 Arizonans found that... Why does the Republic insist on polling the general public and then applying the answer to the 30% of the population that votes? How about asking residents of the western United States what they think of an issue and then applying the results to Arizonans? 57% of Arizonans prefer tofu in their salad according to a poll of residents of Arizona and Southern California... 57% of Pima County residents enjoy the State Fair according to a poll of Arizonans... 57% of Catholics are pro choice according to a poll of Arizona voters... Half of all university professors are Republican according to a poll of white collar workers... These are the same reporters who claimed that the Zogby poll had poor methodology because it wasn't random. In the Zogby poll the participants had to sign up and then participate...you know, kind of like they have to do in an election.
Those dang bipartisan, independent Gerrymanderers I think it's funny that the Democratic Party and the Arizona Republic fought to take redistricting authority away from the Legislature and give it to an independent, bipartisan, five-member panel yet still claim that the results are Gerrymandered. Democratic consultant Michael Frias said. "But we're really living within the reality of gerrymandered districts." Why don't we just make the registration every district reflect the
voting registration of the entire state? Hmm, let's see. The
Republicans have a 150,000 registration advantage statewide, and there are
30 districts, so if we simply divide the state mathematically, every
district would have a 5,000 Republican advantage. I could live with
that.
October 20, 2005 How to Lie as a Journalist...Lesson One. It's hard to lie without ever saying anything that's untrue...but it's possible. That's why witnesses who are under oath must swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Here's a great example from Jon Talton this morning. Underachieving Phoenix can boost business economy I've never heard of the National Policy Research Council, but last week it ranked Phoenix No. 1 in the nation for entrepreneurs. I realize the region has a desperate needy streak for feel-good pronouncements. The reaction is, "See, see, we don't have to do anything but sit here in the sun doing the same things we've done for 50 years." Yet other surveys tell a different story. Entrepreneur magazine's 2005 Hot 100 fastest-growing start-ups included only one Greater Phoenix company. Atlanta, a similar-sized metro area, had several companies on the list. The reader is expected to conclude that the National Policy Research Council is unimportant and lacks credibility, but that Entrepreneur magazine is important. Furthermore, Entrepreneur Magazine indicates that Phoenix is lagging or deficient. While all of Talton's facts are correct, the conclusion that the reader is expected to reach is dead wrong because Talton intentionally left out a key fact. Entrepreneur Magazine ranked the Phoenix Metro area as the number one "Hot Spot" in the nation. Talton managed to leave this impression while making three statements that are undeniably true. 1. He's never heard of the National Policy Research Council. (After all, if an impressive guy like Jon Talton has never heard of it, how can its research be accurate?) 2. Other surveys tell a different story. (The reader is invited to conclude that other surveys tell an opposite story. In fact other surveys will tell you a nearly identical story but they are indeed different.) 3. Entrepreneur magazine's 2005 Hot 100 fastest-growing start-ups included only one Greater Phoenix company. Now that's good journalism. But it's also a tragedy. Think what a brilliant lawyer Talton could have become.
October 19, 2005
Shut up Jon...
Republic Assistant Editorial Writer Dan Nowicki wrote this "Quick Hit" in today's Republic. Richard Florida's 2002 book The Rise of the Creative Class uses Internet search firm Lycos' move from boring Pittsburgh to swinging Boston to argue that U.S. cities must become hip and funky to lure "creative" workers. With Google looking here, maybe the snobby Florida disciples who were quick to dismiss the Valley as pathetically square will finally shut up. Ouch, that's not a "quick hit," it's a drive by shooting. Who could that possibly be directed toward? Hmmm, let's see, could it perhaps be...Jon Talton? Dan, buddy, Talton isn't going to shut up. He's making six figures to drive down the Republic's circulation by telling us how stupid and square we are in Hickville. I should call the publisher and offer to tell everyone how stupid they are for $50K. Florida's book came out in late 2001 and Talton has been shilling it ever since. How about these fine examples.
U.S. CREATIVE CLASS REQUIRES NURTURING, SCHOLAR INSISTS Richard Florida's findings are bad news for those who fight to maintain a Greater Phoenix based mostly on home building, tourism and low-wage service jobs. The costs of that strategy, already evident, will only grow. Jon Talton May 1, 2005
COMPETITION FOR CREATIVE TALENT THREATENS ECONOMY Florida's research shows that 90 percent of the places in America are exporting top talent. The winners, such as San Francisco, can sustain such stresses as high housing prices because these workers want to be in a creative center. Healthier examples to study are Seattle and the Twin Cities, he says. Talton July 22,2004
BUSINESS Consider a similar-sized metro area, Seattle. Its economy is felt globally, with Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, Starbucks, a major port and a center for what author Richard Florida calls the Creative Class. Sure, we have something of everything, but it's not of a size, significance or staying power demanded by such a large urban area. Phoenix lags its peers in high-wage jobs, venture capital, technology entrepreneurs, leader companies, foundations, transit, downtown, even an amusement park. July 18, 2004
DOWNTOWN PHOENIX READY FOR REAL RENAISSANCE Our plan must be both bigger and smaller than the thinking this city has seen in the past. In a future column, I'll offer some wishes for the next phase of downtown. Arizona State University is preparing to create a full campus downtown. Along with the genomics center, this will be a sea change, further attracting the coveted young, educated talent that scholar Richard Florida identifies as the "creative class." Nov 30, 2003
ONLY QUALITY CITIES WILL WIN RACE FOR QUALITY JOBS As The Republic's "growth at the edges" series shows, central Arizona is sleepwalking ahead with the 1960s model of look-alike suburban tract houses, shopping strips and freeways. We shall see whether this risky bet is sustainable. Meanwhile, forward-thinking cities around the nation are preparing for the next wave of competition for quality jobs, capital and ideas. More than 100 of the top thinkers on building creative communities met recently in Memphis, Tenn., among them author Richard Florida and the Morrison Institute's Mary Jo Waits. May 13, 2003
CLASS WORK: EXPLAINING THE NEW FOUNDATION OF SUCCESSFUL CITIES Florida's book goes a long way toward explaining why cities like Austin and Seattle are thriving, while others are struggling. A professor at Carnegie-Mellon University, Florida has spent years studying regional economic development. Phoenix ranks 19th among major regions, in the middle of a pack likely to get more competitive. The Greater Phoenix Economic Council listens to Florida. No wonder: The region's ability to lure the creative class will lift the quality of the economy. June 11, 2002
IS ARIZONA'S ECONOMY BROKEN? YES -- GROWTH, POLITICS ARE TO BLAME The state fares poorly in the factors that draw younger, educated workers and empty-nest baby boomers. Arizona ranked low in amenities, environmental quality, arts and culture, and perceived "coolness," according to a survey by Carnegie-Mellon professor Richard Florida. March 10, 2002
TRAILING THE FIELD LAGGING SUPPORT FOR UNIVERSITIES LEAVES ARIZONA BEHIND IN RACE TO NEW ECONOMY WINNER'S CIRCLE "Regional advantage comes to places that can quickly mobilize the best people, resources and capabilities to turn innovations into new business ideas and commercial products," according to Richard Florida, a Carnegie-Mellon University professor who studies urban economic issues. Feb 17, 2002
PLUGGING BRAIN DRAIN WON'T BE EASY WITH SHALLOW PHOENIX ECONOMY Carnegie-Mellon University Professor Richard Florida says this means "competitive advantage has thus shifted to those regions that can generate, retain, and attract the best talent." It's especially tough for people who have been cut loose as the out-of-town acquirers slim down their new Phoenix colonies, or as the downturn has forced layoffs. Many former high-level executives are looking for work here without success. Nov 25, 2001.
October 18, 2005 Time for your letters...
More on Zogby Dear Greg, Name Withheld They don't teach math at J school. Greg Did you read this in today’s Republic? "While Attorney General Goddard may be vulnerable by virtue of voter registration numbers, his only opponent so far, former prosecutor Bill Montgomery, lacks name identification and experience. Montgomery became a lawyer only four years ago."
Only
the AZ Republic could brazenly claim that he's been practicing law for
ONLY FOUR YEARS, when the AZ Bar website shows it's exactly FIVE years.
You know they'll just pretend it was a mistake if anyone ever calls them
on it. It's only 1 year but considering he hasn't been practicing long,
it's considerably worse to say 4 years instead of 5. Anything to sabotage
his chances at beating Goddard. name withheld
Voice vote is even cheaper. Greg Elections are so messy, expensive and
inconvenient . . . I mean people have to drop what they're doing just to
GO OUT AND VOTE! Either that, or they have to fill out a card and send it
in . . . that means having to go out and find a black ink pen that meets
the requirements . . . and that is really, really tough!!! I just think
it's time we all just make her governor for life. Name withheld What's up with Cannell? I mentioned yesterday that Democratic margins in the Senate are likely to get even more thin with the retirement of Yuma senator Robert Cannell. I received feedback from folks who wanted to know where I heard that he was planning to retire. I got it here.
John Fund drops a bombshell.
And he makes a really good point about judges... There are philosophical reasons for Republican senators to oppose Ms. Miers. In 1987, the liberal onslaught on Robert Bork dramatically changed the confirmation process. The verb to bork, meaning to savage a nominee and distort his record, entered the vocabulary, and many liberals now acknowledge that the anti-Bork campaign had bad consequences. It led to more stealth nominees, with presidents hoping their scant paper trail would shield them from attack. President Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a "superstealth" nominee--a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.
October 17, 2005 Bennett's out... Napolitano declared unbeatable... Major media suggest forgoing election in order not to inconvenience the public. Ken Bennett's decision to forgo a gubernatorial run gives reporters a chance to serve up the conventional wisdom that Napolitano is unbeatable. Here's the Republic's version from Friday. Napolitano is riding shotgun over a growing economy, a $350 million budget surplus and a 70 percent approval rating. She's a popular, pragmatic Democrat who has cut taxes and run circles around the Republican-controlled Legislature. In the era of publicly funded elections, Napolitano will have the same amount of campaign cash as her much lesser known rivals. Even the election map favors Napolitano. Early voting starts about one month after the September 2006 primary, giving the GOP challenger barely any time to capture the great mass of Arizona's independent voters. That's opinion and analysis in the guise of news. It leaves out some key facts and leaves the impression of invincibility. Let me see if I can conjure up an equally accurate--and equally biased--version that goes the other direction. How's this... Napolitano is presiding over an unprecedented increase in government spending amidst rising concerns that increases in interest rates could burst what is generally considered to be a housing bubble. Her widely touted 70% approval rating isn’t translating into votes and recent polls have estimated her support among voters at an anemic 51%. A recent Zogby/Wall St. Journal poll showed her support had actually declined to 47% placing her in a statistical tie with political neophyte Don Goldwater, with virtually any Republican within striking distance. Her future is further clouded by the 150,000 Republican registration advantage and the presence on the ballot of a proposed Constitutional amendment on marriage that is sure to bring social conservatives to the polls in droves. Money is a factor as well. Incumbents can generally count on a tremendous fundraising advantage but the state’s clean election system guarantees that any challenger will be on an equal financial footing with the incumbent. In her race against Matt Salmon, Napolitano benefited from the largess of Jim Pederson, whose multi million dollar contributions to the Democratic party allowed her to enjoy a 2 to1 spending advantage. Meanwhile, an Indian gaming initiative increased turnout among predominantly Democratic native Americans and added millions of dollars to the Democratic party’s get out the vote efforts. Despite these factors, Napolitano's victory was a razor thin 11,000 votes. Neither of those benefits will be available this time. The off year election provided ominous signs as well. Despite Jim Pederson spending 2.8 million dollars on Democratic efforts, George Bush won the state by 11%, six moderate Republicans who worked with Napolitano on the budget were defeated at the polls and Democrats failed to pick up a single net seat in the House and Senate. For further evidence that the wheels are falling off the State Democratic Party’s wagon, one need look no further than Democratic State Representative Cheryl Chase’s announcement that she has left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican caucus. And in another blow, Democratic Senator Robert Cannell announced Friday that he will not be seeking re-election—putting his Yuma-based swing seat in play. Add to this misery the forced retirement of Harry Mitchell, whose status as Tempe icon has allowed Democrats to hold an otherwise Republican seat for the last 8 years and Democrats face the prospect of having their thinnest legislative presence in decades. To his credit, Chip mentioned some of these facts, but they are pooh-poohed in the analysis. Do either of these sections deserve to be in a straight news story?
Come Meet Ari Fleischer Thursday, October 27, 2005, Join the Arizona Chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition as they welcome Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer for “an insiders view on the events and issues affecting the US and World today.” The event will be held at Har Zion Congregation (6140 East Thunderbird Rd) in Scottsdale. To RSVP please call Amy Laff at 480-575-9063 or by email at AHLaff@cox.net.
October 14, 2005 There’s something about Mary--an interview with Mary Peters.
Mary Peters’ Arizona roots run deep. She was born December 4, 1948 in Phoenix. Her grandmother was Chief Clerk of the Arizona House of Representatives for 27 years while her grandfather, was a rancher and miner in Arizona. In 1965, she met a Marine on leave while cruising Central Ave. They married in July of 1966. In 1968 Mary and her husband Terry, and a new baby, moved to his home state of Indiana where she worked in a variety of positions, including operating a day-care center, a meat-packing plant butchering hogs, and running a tax preparation service. They had two other children born in Indiana, Terry Jr. and Christina. They moved back to Arizona in 1984 to be nearer aging parents. Mary Peters began work at ADOT April 1985 as a Secretary. She was rapidly promoted and eventually became Administrator of Engineering Consultant Services. Peters was named Exec. Assistant to the Director in Sept. 1992; that position evolved into Deputy Director for Administration. She was named Deputy Director 1995 and was Appointed Director by Gov. Hull in March 1998. Meanwhile, she worked to complete her college education, initially at community college and completed her degree at University of Phoenix. Mary Peters was nominated to be Federal Highway Administrator, US DOT by President Bush in July of 2001 and resigned that position to return to Arizona in July of 2005. She is now considering running for Governor. Mary Peters and I met for lunch at California Pizza Kitchen on Wednesday. The brace she wore to support her broken collar bone was effectively covered by her jacket. She broke the bone when she laid down her Harley-Davidson at Oracle Junction a few weeks ago. I asked her about the accident and with the same somber tone that a fifth grader would use to say that the family dog had just been put to sleep, she looked down and simply said “I crushed my bike.” This was my first interview, so I wanted to open tough and show who was in charge. So I asked. “Is George Bush taller than he looks on TV?” Her reply, “Yes and if anything, Laura is more petite.” Now that we knew who was boss, I could proceed. Espresso Pundit: Are you using public funding, or going traditional? Mary Peters: Public. EP: Where are you going to get 4,000 $5 contributions? MP: Where does Janet get hers? EP: Unions MP: I’ll get mine from bikers. EP: Excuse me? MP: Bikers. Most of them are Republican. When I was in DC, I rode in the annual Rolling Thunder Memorial Day rally on the Mall. You should have seen them boo the Kerry supporters. In addition to the traditional sources, I’ll tap into the bikers. EP: Cool EP: Pro-choice or Pro-life? MP: Pro-Life. EP: Are you patching things up with Russell Pearce? MP: Russell wants what’s right for the state just like I do and we both want to see Janet Napolitano back in private law practice. I have a call into him. We’ll work things out. EP: I’m originally from Pima County where 400,000 of my brothers and sisters continue living under the tyranny of untimed traffic lights. Can you fix that? Editor’s note: As soon as I asked the question, I knew that I had made the mistake of questioning her on an issue about which she is both expert and passionate--like asking Marc Spitzer about tax policy, Lisa Keegan about school choice or Stan Barnes about craps. Her answer was that, yes, the lights in Pima County can be timed. And it has something to do with the EPA, public/private participation, engineering studies and the Eisenhower administration. After a couple of minutes, I realized that… California Pizza Kitchen doesn’t serve garlic bread…this salad would be much better with garlic bread. EP: What about immigration? Again, her answer is polished and well practiced. Not surprising for someone who has testified before the US Senate and discussed issues with the President. MP: First, we need to secure the border and work with the federal government, not against it. We need to use a variety of tools, including technology to build a virtual fence. Second, we need to reform immigration laws, establishing a guest worker program that is more restrictive than a green card and let people re-apply if they can prove they have behaved in the interim. The interview concluded, Mary Peters points out the new Chrysler Crossfire that pulls into the parking lot. I guess If it’s got wheels, the woman’s an expert. But now it’s off to her 1:30 with JD Hayworth.
October 13, 2005 Greg, Just to follow up on your story about Zogby’s poll. You are dead on. I have seen other polling that clearly gives Napolitano a ceiling of 51%. That is not convincing for an incumbent. It is also consistent with Zogby’s numbers. He has her dropping a few points from other polls I have seen, but the numbers are certainly consistent with each other. I was stunned at how many Republicans were willing to privately and publicly criticize the poll. The fact is we don’t know everything about his methodology. However, he is ZOGBY. He is one of the most well-respected pollsters in the country. He deserves the benefit of the doubt. If I was in JN’s campaign, I would be very very worried. Furthermore, he is a big fan of Napolitano’s. Here is what he said March 6, 2005 in the AZ Republic, "Janet Napolitano is a smart politician." Nathan Sproul
The criticism against Zogby is not that he's not accurate, it's that his methods generally overstate Democratic advantage. A Zogby poll in which Napolitano tops out at 48% coming on top of polls in which she tops out at 51% is an indication of trouble.
Robert Novak issues a correction on his Jeff Flake column. In a recent column, I incorrectly listed Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona as self-term limited. I was unaware that a year ago he reneged on his promise to serve only three terms in Congress.
Anatomy of a photograph Several readers have sent me this link Greg; This would be a good addition to your blog.
A great example of media bias. Googleing Talton
Greg-
Thank God Google doesn't read Jon Talton's columns. If they did,
they'd never have come here. According to media accounts, Google's
stated reasons for picking the Valley are the quality of the
workforce, the education system, and the general quality of life.
Aren't those the exact things that Talton always harps on ad nauseum,
in his rants extolling the virtues of Soviet-style central planning?
In many newspapers business columnists are really little more than
cheerleaders for the area's economy. I don't expect that out of
Talton. But I would expect that a business columnist would not
consistently paint a false and gloomy picture of his home area just to
push a far left wing agenda.
The Google move here has completely discredited Talton. If he
won't do the honorable thing and resign, the Republic ought to pull
the plug.
Name withheld
October 12, 2005 Tired of reading the law? Try writing it. Word around the old espresso plantation is that retired Supreme Court Justice Charles "Bud" Jones is planning to run for the District 11 House seat being vacated by Steve Tully. While we are waiting for readers to confirm or deny this rumor, I'll put in my two cents...
This would be a good career move for Justice Jones. Here are may top 10 reasons why it's better to be a State Representative than Supreme Court Justice. 10. All-you-can-eat shrimp 9. Fewer Lawyers 8. If it's got the votes--it's Constitutional (Never mind, that's the same) 7. New colleagues will think "Stare Decisis" is a Van Gogh painting. 6. Justice Hurwitz uses such big words. 5. "Bud" is a much better name for a Legislator than a Justice 4. There's a really cool tunnel between the House and Senate. 3. Finally get to wear pants to work. 2. Instead of guessing at legislative intent, you can just ask. 1. Rebecca Rios
The Star contrasts Kyl's announcement with Pederson's. The Kyl whirlwind makes Pederson's announcement - made in front of the city hall in his hometown of Casa Grande - seem rather low-key. Whether the Democrat's campaign remains low-key is another issue. Notice the word "remains." Pederson has been a candidate for a month now and has yet to make a high-profile public appearance in solidly Democratic Tucson. In political parlance, that's called neglecting your base. Kinda like what Bush did by tapping Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. OUCH!
If he pulls on his left ear, he's in....but if he strokes his chin you are supposed to steal third. A logjam of potential gubernatorial candidates is expected to start clearing up later this week. That's when state Senate President Ken Bennett plans to signal whether he will try to challenge Governor Janet Napolitano. If he does decide to run, Bennett's words will be carefully chosen because he's subject to the state's resign-to-run law. The law requires officeholders to resign if they become candidates for another office before their current term's final year. Ken, let me give you a bit of unsolicited advice. You can't hold a press conference to "signal" that you are running in order to avoid the resign to run law. If you wanted to get the word out and still have plausible deniability, you should have told a couple lobbyists after swearing them to absolute secrecy.
Who's this "Sting" fellow? Greg, Pima County Pundit fan
October 11, 2005 Bennett is Out... From the Capitol Times Senate President Ken Bennett, R-1, says his decision on whether to run next year for governor is about a week off. About a week off? Like October? Fifteen months before his term expires? That means that he's either out of the race, out of the Senate or out of his mind. Since he is not in the last year of his office, announcing for Governor is a defacto resignation. So he is either announcing that he is resigning from the Senate to run for Governor, or he is announcing that he is out of the Governor's race. If he was planning to announce an "exploratory committee" as a signal that he is running, then he's out of his mind. That only works when you don't preview the announcement by saying... ...his decision on whether to run next year for governor is about a week off.
Mine. Mine. Mine... Governor Napolitano generally has pretty good political instincts. But occasionally she looks like a kindergartener who cuts in line to take the last chocolate milk. Here's a great example. Should Arizona's entry in the 50 State Quarter Program feature the Grand Canyon or a saguaro cactus? Or both? Or something else altogether? Governor Napolitano has signed an executive order establishing a commission of state officials, educators and just plain citizens to solicit suggestions and by next September pick several for consideration as finalists. The three to five finalists will be submitted to the Mint to render into actual coin designs. The commission then will recommend one to Napolitano. Her order says she has final approval over the ultimate design. If she doesn't learn to share, she's going to end up in time out. Here's a copy of the order. Notice that the Quarter won't be unveiled until 2008, but the Governor wants the designs on her desk by September 2006. Hmm, what else could be going on at that time?
Bloggers vs. the MSM Capitol Times has confirmed that Frank Riggs is considering a run against Carolyn Allen. A former California congressman now living in Scottsdale says he is contemplating a primary run in District 8 next year against Sen. Carolyn Allen. Of course, this item appeared in espresso pundit on September 28th and I got it from the September 26th entry in the Arizona Conservative.
Here's an interesting letter on yesterday's poll story. Greg, You make some very good points about polling and the obvious shortcomings in the reporting of those results. With any poll, the key to accuracy is the sample. As you point out in your blog, there is a huge difference between polls of “adults”, “registered voters”, and “likely voters”. Polls of adults and registered voters might tell us something, but they rarely tell us the true lay of the land when it comes to an election. As you point out, only a small percentage of registered voters ever actually vote in these elections and thus a poll of registered voters will often show us very little in terms of where a race actually is. Even polls of “likely voters” will often succumb to the same problem. Though I have not seen the scripts of these recent polls and have no idea what sample they are using, a common practice among polls conducted for news or academic organizations is to simply ask voters if they regularly vote in elections. If they say yes, they are a likely voter for that poll. A poll of these “likely voters” is more accurate than say a “registered voters” poll, but it still is not as accurate as it should be because many people are reluctant to admit to a pollster that they don’t vote. In order to obtain the clearest and most accurate picture of a race, most campaigns will actually call a sample of “likely voters” determined by vote history so that accuracy can be ensured. This is something that few media and academic pollsters commonly do. As for favorability, you are right about that not translating directly into votes. However, a high favorability rating is an indicator of strength, and Napolitano does have a very high favorability rating right now. But the breakdown between “very good” and “good” is something to watch closely. The difference between “very good” and “good” is more telling than most people, including journalists, would think. This is an intensity question that is trying to gauge the level of support for the candidate. If someone says a candidate is doing a “very good” job it is a good indicator that the person likes the candidate in question a lot and will likely support them. A “good” rating is still not bad, but it does indicate that the support for that candidate is softer and they are more apt to be persuaded to support someone else. To use an example from your post, 32% of the voters in the poll you referenced said Napolitano is doing a “very good” job. This is probably accurate and reflective of her base of support. It is also probably entirely made up of left leaning voters who would never vote for a Republican anyway. The 43% who said she is doing a “good” job are people who probably like some of the things she is doing, but are not in love with her—these people are persuadable. To put this in perspective, if I was Napolitano’s campaign manager, I would like to have the “very good” rating be at 40% or higher among likely voters. That would be a sign that she is in very good shape and has little chance at this point of being beaten. Of course this brings up another shortcoming among polls. As most pollsters will tell you, a poll is nothing more than a snapshot in time of what voter sentiment is at that point. In other words things change. From what I have seen so far of public polls, I think it is safe to say that Napolitano is in good shape right now going into the 2006 elections, but she is not “invincible”. Her poll numbers show a governor who has been able to maintain her Democrat base while not offending independents and moderate Republicans. The key for the Republicans running for Governor will be to give these moderate Republicans and independents a reason to leave the Governor and go with someone else on Election Day. It’s there for the taking, but it will be tough and require a lot of work. Chris Baker
Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I reported last week that the political community has been stunned by this news. The Zogby/WSJ poll shows Napolitano with 47 percent of those surveyed and Goldwater with 45 percent. That spread is well within the poll's 4 percent margin of error and goes against conventional wisdom that Napolitano is a clear favorite for re-election. But why is this such a shock? On September 4, 2005, the Republic reported that: Private polls show that Arizonans are still somewhat undecided about a second Napolitano term. Her re-election number -- those who say they would vote for her in 2006 -- currently stands at 51 percent. About 15 to 20 percent of the electorate is still undecided. These poll results are not that different. Unfortunately, several recent polls have been misreported, leaving the impression that Janet is invincible. Here are some common mistakes in the recent poll stories. Misinterpreting the Sample Here's a reporter's take on the SurveyUsa poll that came out on September 19th. (Phoenix, AZ) -- A new poll indicates Governor Janet Napolitano is enjoying strong approval ratings. According to SurveyUSA, Napolitano's overall approval rating stands at 60-percent among Arizona voters. However, the survey was clearly marked as polling ADULTS. Since voters represent about 30 percent of adults. The poll results are meaningless when applied to voters. Misinterpreting the Question--Approval vs Votes On September 29, the Republic reported that: The poll also found strong support for Gov. Janet Napolitano, with 69 percent of voters approving of the job she is doing, 19 percent disapproving and 12 percent with no opinion. August 21 She has solid poll numbers, ratings that President Bush only dreams of. Arizonans like her confidence, her determination, her moderation. She has an experienced political team that hasn't made a lot of mistakes. The question "Do you approve of Janet Napolitano's performance" does not necessarily translate into "If the election were held today, would you vote for Janet Napolitano or Don Goldwater" I believe there is a large group of voters who generally approve of an office holder but prefer another candidate. A common political mistake is to cater to your opponent's base and hope they support you. Unfortunately, your opponent's base may like you. But they will still vote for your opponent. Another way to put it is that I really like pizza, but I eat a lot more fajitas than pizza. If a pollster asks me about my pizza preferences, I will speak very highly of pizza. However, if I must choose what I am going to have for dinner. I'm more likely to choose the fajitas. Misinterpreting the Question: Do you vote on that issue? Another classic misinterpretation mistake is to confuse support for the candidate's position on an issue with support for the candidate. Here's a story from the Star. ...the governor found strong support - 79 percent - for her decision to bar guns in bars, nightclubs and restaurants that serve alcohol, even with a proviso that the person who is armed agrees not to drink. I would consider that a loaded question and I would be suspect of the responses that came later in the poll Thirty-two percent of those asked rated Napolitano's performance over the past year as very good, with another 47 percent saying she did a good job. Once they have been fed the "guns in bars" question. How likely is it that they are going to disapprove of her performance? But how likely are the to vote for her? We have no idea. President Buchanan? Pat Buchanan made this mistake when he realized that a large percentage of people were troubled by immigration and NAFTA. But he learned a valuable lesson. People don't VOTE on that issue. Governor Pearce? Russell Pearce gets high marks for his response to immigration issues. But if, say, 65% of people prefer his immigration solutions more than Janet's, does that mean he will defeat her by a 2-1 margin? Of course not. People aren't going to vote on immigration issues alone. At least Janet better hope not. Misinterpreting the Question: Going the wrong direction? Another common misinterpretation mistake involves the classic question "Do you think the state/country is moving in the right direction or the wrong direction? John Kerry made a huge mistake when he assumed that a large "wrong direction" number meant doom for George Bush. Kerry and the journalists who covered him overlooked the fact that some people think the country is moving in the wrong direction because evolution is being taught in school, TV is too violent and judges are out of control. This disaffected minority was never likely to vote for John Kerry. Faulty Methodology? Voters don't turn out equally. In fact well over 30% of registered voters will stay home. A poll in which the sample is simply "registered voters" is virtually useless and a good pollster will adjust the sample to reflect likely voters. For example, the number of registered voters age 18-25 may be the same as the number of registered voters age 65-75. But it's likely that fewer than 30% of the younger voters will go to the polls while nearly all of the older voters will cast ballots. These two blocks are also likely to express widely different preferences, so these turnout differentials must be reflected in the turnout model of any poll that claims to predict an election. Even if a poll only samples voters--as opposed to adults, and even if they ask if you are going to vote for the candidate--as opposed to simply approving of them, the poll is useless if it doesn't account for turnout differentials. The poll must seek voter preferences of those who are most likely to vote. How about Zogby's methodology? Much has been made about the fact that Zogby's methodology isn't random. He seeks responses from people who sign up to participate. Republicans have long complained that Zogby's polls lean Democratic and he famously overestimated John Kerry's performance. However, Zogby corrects for demographics through weighting and he overcomes some sample bias because his methodology allows for a huge sample size. And how different is signing up for a poll and expressing a preference than registering to vote and showing up at the polls? It seems to me that Zogby has created a threshold effort for participation that allows his sample to mirror the "most likely to vote" category. Those are my thoughts. I'm not an expert, so let me know what you think.
October 8, 2005 Lest We Forget...
The picture below is the Boeing B-17F-10-BO Flying Fortress, SN: #41-24485, DF Better known by its nick name "MEMPHIS BELLE"
Long time Mesa resident Robert Hanson, the last surviving member of the original crew, died last week. Here are some excerpts from his obitu | ||||
Photo by espresso pundit
