A WESTLY EDGE IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE POLLING, AND WHY THE RELATIVELY SMALL LOTTERY FUNDS PLAY BIG IN HIS ADVERTISING
Public and private polls are telling us that California voters really worry about public education but aren’t willing to pay for it. And that they are uninformed about and mistrustful of the education system and the current officeholders overseeing it. It’s a formula for new faces and future recrimination.
The new Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll goes in depth on voter attitudes toward education, turning up widespread voter dismay yet no support for any tax increases except on the rich. Two private polls show that voters have high expectations of State Lottery reform, even though returns would actually be relatively modest.
This is why you’re seeing lottery reform mentioned so prominently in Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner Steve Westly’s education ads, even though his own estimation is that it would yield only about $100 million. It’s what most voters mistakenly think. Just as, during the 2003 recall election, private polling for Arnold Schwarzenegger showed that most voters believed that one third of the state’s budget was “waste, fraud, and abuse.” This allowed the former action superstar to say that his budget plan was “to audit all the books.”
With a private poll for an organization not involved in the primary showing a substantial edge among general election swing voters for Controller Westly over his Democratic rival, Treasurer Phil Angelides, in any match-up with Governor Schwazenegger, the PPIC poll focusing on education has Westly’s primary lead over Angelides up five points over his tiny edge in the PPIC poll completed 13 days before this poll began. In this poll, which has a much higher undecided — more than 50% — than the Field Poll due to different methodology, Westly led Angelides 26% to 20%. The poll was conducted from April 4 to April 19. Among voters concerned with education, the top issue, Westly led 29% to 20%.
Support for Proposition 82, controversial movie director Rob Reiner’s universal preschool initiative, was down to 51 percent.
But the poll, conducted over a whopping 16-day period, is clearly not geared to the latest on the political horse race but an in-depth view of attitudes on public education. Conducting it over such a long period of time is valid for what is essentially an issue survey because there were no fast-moving developments affecting issue attitudes.
The 58% of Californians saying education is a big problem is the highest in this decade. A third believe the quality of education has declined in the last two years. Sixty percent say the schools are not doing a good job readying students for work, 53% say the same of readying students for college, 44% believe the schools are doing a poor job even instilling basic skills.
Yet only 36% favor raising the sales tax and 24% favor raising property taxes to fund education improvements; 60% favor raising taxes on high income Californians. The poll doesn’t ask about so-called sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol, but would probably show a willingness by the majority to tax the habits of a minority.
“A lack of trust in government makes people reluctant to pay higher taxes, even for things they wholeheartedly support,” says PPIC Poll director Mark Baldassare. “They need to believe their money will be used efficiently.”
A whopping 83% of likely voters believe better use of existing funds is key to improving education. Accountability is a major underlying theme of the poll results, with over 70% believing that students should have to pass not only a statewide test in order to graduate from high school, but also statewide tests in order to be promoted to the next grade.
No politicians in their current offices fare well on this issue. Governor Schwarzenegger — whose job approval numbers in this poll are 38% approve, 50% disapprove — finds that only 29% approve of his handling of education. Yet that is higher than the 21% approving of the job of state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, who faces no serious opposition for re-election. That anemic figure is matched by the Legislature, which with 21% approval and 55% disapproval has much worse numbers than the governor.
The polling on education, public and private, paints a bleak picture. A disgruntled and ill-informed electorate, supportive only of taxing someone else and demanding of internal reforms from officeholders in whom it has no faith. It’s a scenario ripe for a fresh face like Westly, whose campaign themes uncannily mirror the findings. But what happens if he gets into office and, for example, the voters belatedly learn that the Lottery provides only a small portion of the state’s education funding? Abruptly enlightened people are seldom happy.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
Citzens of this state chose to turn their backs on their communities long before they had great reasons to mistrust government. (And of course, we and and all our wonderful initiatives are responsible for most of the mess.)
Bleak indeed.
Mr. Bradley – did they take a poll of Westley vs. Angelides???
And this is a column about education …
Why, yes, they did.
Omg I feel stupid. I just re-read what you wrote! I didn’t even SEE the poll when I read it the first time. 2 early for me!!! So Westley is winning???
A six-point lead with more than 50 percent undecided means the race is wide open, and that anything can happen between now and June 6. Westly needs to add some more substance to his smooth, but relatively content-light, TV persona. Angelides needs to let core voters know that he is the only Democratic candidate who supports single-payer universal health care, the only one who doesn’t want to abolish Democratic nominating primaries, etc.
Don’t forget the methodology difference. The poll was done over a 16-day period and is not about the governor’s race. You don’t do a candidate poll over 16 days. It also has no push for leaning voters, hence the enormous undecided.
Private polls actually geared to the governor’s race rather than a leisurely excursion through voter attitudes on an issue show a bigger Westly lead.
If you look at the Angelides daughters’ ad for their dad, it does not mention socialized medicine or closed partisan primaries. Instead, it has the daughters talking about fighting Wall Street to preserve pensions (intereting messenger on that) and Arnold education “cuts” (he did not cut education) and health cuts.
Who is doing the Angelides message selection? They need to locate the issues that separate Westly from the primary voter base (such as universal health care and his plan to abolish Democratic nominating primaries) and go for it. The clock is ticking.
Also, the June 6 Democratic primary is not a “closed partisan primary” — it is open to Decline to State voters. But it is closed to Republicans and members of other parties — and should be. Why should Republicans be able to vote on which Democrat will appear in the general election? But that’s Westly’s plan — he signed the ballot argument for that in 2004, and still supports it.
Jeff, I suspect that Angelides polling does not show socialized medicine and partisan primaries to be winning issues. Even in a Democratic primary in which he is clearly appealing to core base voters.
Interesting analysis, Bill. Just how big is Westly’s lead in these private polls? Bigger than the 11-point lead in the Field Poll?
Also, it looks like 60% of voters would support Phil’s call to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for education. He should make a new ad ASAP that focuses on this proposal.
Bill,
We are concerned about our childrens education. Westly’s message about a free communiy college education appeals to us as parents and we BOTH used the public college system oursleves. Priorities in public policy will make a winning candidate.
I’ll be writing separately on polls.
Phil has a serious problem with doing what you just suggested. He would have to spell out what his tax hike plan actually is. Three weeks after he said he is the only candidate with an “exact” plan to “fully fund” education and balance the budget, we still haven’t seen it.
Go to his web site and look for it yourself. You won’t find it.
You know, he and Westly have both endorsed the Reiner initiative, which would tax the rich to pay for preschool.
They will have to wait until after the Reiner initiative loses to talk publicly about that pot of potential money with substantial credibility.
The problem is that none of these candidates have actual plans that actually solve the problem.
CADem, “A whopping 83% of likely voters believe better use of existing funds is key to improving education.” So if Phil wants to really pander to the electorate then he should modify his position to first look to better use of existing funds and then tax the rich…
Complication. His core backing from the two teachers unions.
I would greatly wonder about the source of any poll that purports to show that high-propensity Democratic primary voters in California are against universal health care, or want to abolish Democratic nominating primaries.
The general election is a different equation. But you don’t get to the general if you don’t win the primary.
Let’s keep this focused on the topic.
Education.
Bill- The Contra Costa Times says that 64% support raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for education funding. Isn’t that what Angelides is advocating?
While 64 percent of residents and 60 percent of likely voters favor raising the income tax of the wealthy to improve schools . . .
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/14440473.htm
Increasing taxes on the “rich” is a proposition of diminishing returns. Same deal with those who think loading-on another round of cigarette taxes will supply any sort of dependable, long-term funding solution.
Less and less people are smoking. The only group that continues to smoke are kids. So they want smoking kids to pay for anti-smoking programs and health care for… kids?!
Not very logical…
And tom has it right, and I gotta disagree w/ Bill on the opening paragraph.
Voters do care about education and are CURRENTLY paying for it. The money is not well spent and is not getting to where it needs to go.
SHow some reforms and real accounting for the current funds, then provide the voters (IE: Taxpayers) the benefits that additional dollars would bring, and maybe people would raise some taxes on everyone.
But continuing to place higher tax demands on “the rich” who are already paying the largest proportion of $$ into the general fund ain’t gonna do the trick.
The plan of reducing lottery ticket payout will not be popular among people who regularly play the lottery. That may be lots of voters. Besides, per-student spending has risen greatly in recent years, despite all the “cuts in education spending” we keep hearing about.
A whopping 83% of likely voters believe better use of existing funds is key to improving education. Accountability is a major underlying theme of the poll results, with over 70% believing that students should have to pass not only a statewide test in order to graduate from high school, but also statewide tests in order to be promoted to the next grade.”
This is exactly why the Mayor of LA will succeed in his Reform Effort. I am so proud of the Speaker because he has committed to doing everything he can to getting the legislation passed that the Mayor needs to reform LA Unified…Go Antonio!..Go Fabian!… Mr.Bradley, this is a very busy day because I am tutoring and going to Julia’s rally…and I have to go do my nails -they are going to be orange for the weekend! So I will be back to read you, but no time to post again today. Have a good day! P.S. Hey Julia, when I saw last night that you said there will be a couple hundred at the rally, I sent out e-mail last night to all my state worker girlfriends to circulate that they should come to the rally because the Nurses are bringing George Clooney to speak because he is very political now and has a special alliance with the nurses because of his “ER” days…now, if anyone asks you where he is, just say “That Barb! she confused the dates! that’s the next rally”….Toodles!
Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that guy behind the tree.
AthlonGuy, you said, “Besides, per-student spending has risen greatly in recent years, despite all the “cuts in education spending” we keep hearing about.”
But California still only ranks 25 out of 51 (including DC) in per pupil spending. And generally our cost of living is higher that most states, so in reality what we spend on kids is probably less than most states.
I think the interesting part of this poll is the 60% who say they’d tax the rich to pay for education. (It would be interesting to see what the breakouts for Dems would be – I’ll bet way higher than 60%). On it’s face, it sure sounds like Phil’s plan – can he connect with the voters on it?
Barbara – Has Antonio explained how he’s going to deal with the fact that LAUSD goes beyond the city borders? That, to me, seems like his biggest obstacle (that and it looks like a power grab, even if it might be the right thing to do – I don’t know enough about it yet!)
James asks “Has Antonio explained how he’s going to deal with the fact that LAUSD goes beyond the city borders? That, to me, seems like his biggest obstacle (that and it looks like a power grab, even if it might be the right thing to do – I don’t know enough about it yet!)”
He would set up a council of Mayors to oversee LAUSD representing all the cities in the District which would be proportional so L.A. would have most of the seats.
Proposition 82 would tax the “rich” and it is down to 51% before one ad has been run against it. Both Demos are for it. Most Demos are for it. The voters don’t care. It’s going down.
This poll tells us voters are fed up with the schools performance and fed up with feeding more money into a failing system. You must be a real tax and spend zealot to believe that this poll is a mandate for Angelides.
Bill, as I’m sure you’re well aware, anyone who has ever sat in a focus group on education issues knows EXACTLY why Westly is making such a big deal out of lottery reform. We consultants like to bet how long into the focus group the lottery will come up. Usually within 5 minutes.
the folks working to pass the lottery initiative way back when must have done a tremendous job selling this as the panacea for education funding. only it wasn’t. but voters haven’t forgotten those promises.
Exactly right, Brandon.
No wonder the public thinks the Lottery enriches schools. To this day the Lottery Commission touts its support: http://www.calottery.com/Support/
And didn’t TV ads for the lottery used to have the tag line “Our schools win too”.
“A lack of trust in government makes people reluctant to pay taxes, even for things they wholeheartedly support,” Baldassare said, “They need to feel their money will be used efficiently”
No reform, no tax increases, which means tough love for the teachers union and school administrators.
I heard Bob Mulholland on 790 KABC this morning on the McIntire show. The education issues presented were poorly articulated. The thing that sticks out in my mind is that, when pressed hard by McIntire, Mulholland indicated that Phil’s proposal would increase the number of high school counselors at a cost to the public of $200 Million. I have referred to the Angelides website, specifically the Feb 2nd, 2006 press release indicating the CTA endorsement where Angelides promises to add 6,442 public school counselors. Assuming the cost to employ a counselor is a conservative $55,000 annually (according to the CA EDD, the average school counselor salary is $42,000 then add in employment costs, i.e. benefits, etc.), the math comes out to over $354 Million. That is 75% more than what Mullhand stated. What am I missing here?
The talking point that Mulholland hammered on is the fact that CA is near the bottom of per student expenditure nation wide. McIntire rebutted that The Washington D.C. schools are at the top of the list in per student expenditure but are near the bottom in terms of student performance. This is a very important point. I want to know what Angelides’ empirical data is to support increasing taxes in order to increase per student expenditure with a goal of greater outcomes (higher student performance, lower dropouts, etc.)
An interesting counterpoint to the Angelides theory is written in some research done by Caroline Minter Hoxby, Harvard College Professor and Allie S. Freed Professor of Economics. She has dedicated a career to researching the economics of public education. In the following linked paper (http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/teachersunion_oct2000.pdf) she asserts the following, based on empirical evidence:
“I find that teachers’ unions increase school inputs but reduce productivity sufficiently to have a negative overall effect on student performance.”
It is a very interesting read. The CTA backs Phil. They want increased inputs (more money.) But if there is evidence that supports this having a negative impact on student performance, perhaps the position needs to be reconsidered.
Now, I really have not heard enough from Westly to understand how he will shore up our public schools other than to divert more lottery funds, which everyone agrees won’t fill the bucket. If he does have a plan, I hope it is based on the economic research of funding public schools.
As uninformed as the public often is, they got it right that the “better use of existing funds is key to improving education.” But they still don’t seem to mind taking someone else’s money to give to the education establishment. Unfortunately they don’t seem to get that we need that money just to balance the structural deficit in the budget and ought to reject any calls for higher spending by any interest group until we get that corrected. Or perhaps they don’t get it because pollsters, the media and politicians aren’t asking them such questions. Your average voter isn’t going to read LAO reports.
New PPIC Survey…
A very interesting new Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) study of education was released today. The study addressed a number of very interesting questions regarding public education in California. Among the findings were the following:
…
If the Democrat wins the general, I wonder how long it will take before disaffected voters tired of seeing tax increases proposed start circulating a petition for school vouchers.