.
.
.
Elizabeth Warren inspired a progressive organization that is almost always wonderful. (Almost always. But not when it comes to polling CA-49.)
(1) New Polling Results in CA-49 That You Won’t Believe! (And Rightly So.)
I was contacted yesterday by someone whom I’ve known only by reputation and long-admired: Adam Green, co-founder (with Stephanie Taylor) of PCCC. the Progressive Change Congressional Committee, which is associated with one of my favorite Senators, Elizabeth Warren. Green offered to share with me results of polling that they did in CA-45 and CA-49, so long as I agreed to embargo the results until 5:00 a..m. I told him that I knew that his group had supported Levin while I support Applegate, but that I would respect the embargocall my report the results straight.
I’m up early today to prepare to leave for the Democratic Party convention in San Diego — so I read the report at 5:02 a.m., planning to publish something on it (I had expected to do a simple cut-and-paste of it) by 5:10 or so.
Instead, it has taken me two hours beyond that — because I am absolutely FURIOUS about what I read!
I knew full well that PCCC had endorsed Sen. Warren’s former student Katie Porter in CA-45 (Walters’s seat) and — startling local leftist activists — corporate-friendly Dem Mike Levin in CA-49.(Issa’s former seat.) I expected that the poll should probably be treated as essentially “in house” for both candidates. But even then, I was not prepared for what I found.
- In CA-45, Porter did best among Democrats, leading the pack, and did comparably well to her arch-nemesis fellow UCI Law professor Dave Min, (I support neither: I like Kia Hamdancy and Brian Forde.)
- In CA-49, PCCC reported only that Mike Levin outpaced Republican co-leader, Marine Colonel Rocky Chavez.
- PCCC did not report a one-on-one matchup between Democratic leader Doug Applegate and Chavez — or any other Republican.
- PCCC did not report on a matchup between Applegate and Levin (with or without others), as it did with Porter in CA-45.
Now, if we consider this in effect an in-house poll conducted on behalf of Levin — and now I definitely do — there’s no ethical reason that PCCC has to report any results that reflect badly on its candidate. (It does raise the issue of whether this poll should be considered an independent expenditure, if they’re not promoting it as “news,” but that’s a discussion for another time.)
However, the juxtaposition of the CA-45 and ca-49 reports DOES give rise to some reasonable inferences!
PRESUMPTION 1: PCCC probably cares A LOT MORE about Katie Porter — who has actual ties to Sen. Warren — than about Mike Levin.
PRESUMPTION 2: PCCC would thus be more inclined to protect Porter than Levin.
PRESUMPTION 3: While it is POSSIBLE that PCCC simply chose not to include Doug Applegate in any of its polling, it is SUCH A WEIRD CHOICE that it would harm the group’s reputation if they had actually excluded him. They didn’t even exclude Kia Hamadanchy from CA-45, for God’s sake!
PRESUMPTION 4: They probably did poll Doug Applegate against Mike Levin — they should care about that, right? — and probably against Col. Chavez as well.
PRESUMPTION 5: If the results for Levin compared to Applegate were as good as those for Katie Porter compared to Dave Min — a virtual tie — they would have reported them.
PRESUMPTION 6: In fact, given Presumption 2 above, if the results for Levin compared to Applegate were anywhere near as good as those for Katie Porter compared to Dave Min —they would still have reported them!
CONCLUSION 1: If PCCC did the normal, rational, admirable thing and include Doug Applegate in its poll, APPLEGATE MUST BE ABSOLUTELY CREAMING LEVIN. I mean, losing by something like a 2:1 margin — in which event delegates wanting to avoid an R-on-R runoff between Chavez and Harkey should be pouring over to Applegate’s side this weekend!
CONCLUSION 2: The bottom line that they report in mass-email about their poll — that “We commissioned a few California district polls: … Katie Porter is strong in California 45, and Mike Levin is strong in California 49″ is almost PAINFULLY misleading. And I don’t consider misleading people to be a progressive value.
CONCLUSION 3: Asking Adam Green whether they did poll Applegate or not — and why, when they polled the whole field in CA-45 ans should have known that Applegate was at minimum a leading contender — would be cruel. Green would not be the first pretty damned excellent progressive to receive contact poisoning from touching Orange County’s Democratic political establishment, which lives for such moments as crushing the Berniecrat to favor the Hillaryman. So I’m not going to ask him whether they polled Applegate and if so why they didn’t report the results — although I’ll email him this link and invite him to comment here without editing (although not without rebuttal), and I implore you all to treat him with respect. although you should feel welcome to nicely asking him whatever questions you think need to be answered.. Instead, I’m going to ask YOU READERS — and I hope that you will share this post broadly — this question:
HAVE YOU BEEN POLLED ON TUES. FEB. 20 OR WED. FEB. 21 ON THE CA-49 RACE. IF THE POLL ASKED ABOUT A MATCH-UP BETWEEN MIKE LEVIN AND ROCKY CHAVEZ, DID IT ALSO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT DOUG APPLEGATE?
Below, we’ll present the results of a three-day poll started two weeks ago by the San Diego Union-Tribune, which covers all serious (and some less serious) candidates in the race, and then the results emailed out by PCCC today.
(2) San Diego Media Poll Results for CA-49: Applegate 18, Chavez 17; Harkey at 10, Levin at 8, Gaspar 7, Jacobs 5
(D) Doug Applegate 18(R) Rocky Chavez 17(R) Diane Harkey 10(D) Mike Levin 8(R) SD Supv. Kristin Gaspar 7(D) Sarah Jacobs 5(?) Brian Maryott 2(?) Joshua Schoonover 2(D) Paul Kerr 1(D) Christine Prejean 1(P&F) Jordan Mills 0(Lbt) Joshua Hancock 0
To save you some trouble, that sums to 71%, with 29% unaccounted for. Again, both leaders are retired Marine Colonels. Partisanship be damned in this district — in a runoff, many votes for the one who didn’t make a runoff would go to the one who did. This district is just drawn to be very very military friendly!
(3) How PCCC Reported Its Own Results
For AD-45 (Mimi Walters. Porter & Min):
Poll conducted for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee by Public Policy Polling, 648 registered voters in CA-45 surveyed Feb. 20-21, 2018. MOE +/-3.9%. Donate to support our polling here.
Q. Do you approve or disapprove of President Donald Trump’s job performance?
Approve 44%
Disapprove 54%
Not sure 3%
Q. If the primary election for Congress were held today, and the candidates were Republican Mimi Walters and Democrats Katie Porter, David Min, Brian Ford, and Kia Hamandanchy, who would you vote for?
Mimi Walters 42%
Katie Porter 16%
David Min 12%
Brian Ford 4%
Kia Hamandanchy 6%
Not sure 21%
Q. If the general election for Congress were held today, and the candidates were Democrat Katie Porter and Republican Mimi Walters, who would you vote for?
Katie Porter 46%
Mimi Walters 44%
Not sure 10%
Q. If the general election for Congress were held today, and the candidates were Democrat David Min and Republican Mimi Walters, who would you vote for?
David Min 45%
Mimi Walters 44%
Not sure 11%
Q. Which party do you believe stands more on the side of working people, Democrats or Republicans?
Democrats 49%
Republicans 43%
Not sure 8%
Now I’m going to ask you about some proposals being offered by candidates for Congress. After each, please tell me if you support or oppose the proposal.
Q. Increase Social Security benefits and pay for that increase by having the wealthy pay the same rate into Social Security as everyoneelse.
Support 61%
Oppose 18%
Not sure 21%
Q. Allow the government to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, which could save over a hundred billion dollars per year for taxpayers and seniors.
Support 77%
Oppose 10%
Not sure 13%
Q. Invest a trillion dollars to create millions of new good-paying jobs by investing in our roads, bridges, schools, clean water, and jobs of the future like solar and broadband.
Support 72%
Oppose 13%
Not sure 15%
Q. Create a publicly-owned not-for-profit pharmaceutical company to compete against private drug companies, to create more competition in the marketplace and stop big drug companies from jacking up prices for our seniors.
Support 61%
Oppose 22%
Not sure 17%
Q. Ensure that any student who graduates from a public college or university can graduate without debt — through a combination of increasing Pell Grants for families, work-study for students, and federal aid to states to bring down costs at public schools.
Support 49%
Oppose 31%
Not sure 21%
Q. Enact strong new laws to reduce gun violence, including strong background checks and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.
Support 70%
Oppose 21%
Not sure 9%
Q. Ensure that any parent who works full time receives a living wage so they can put food on the table and their family does not live in poverty.
Support 57%
Oppose 26%
Not sure 16%
Q. Save billions of dollars reversing tax cuts for the rich and eliminating tax loopholes for large corporations, and use that money to make long-term investments in rebuilding our roads, bridges, and schools.
Support 60%
Oppose 25%
Not sure 15%
Q. Overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and pass other laws to curb the influence of big-money in our politics.
Support 58%
Oppose 16%
Not sure 25%
Q. Enact strong consumer protections so families are not ripped off or thrown into debt by the fine print used by credit card companies, big banks, and predatory lenders.
Support 66%
Oppose 17%
Not sure 17%
Q. Fully investigate the Wall Street bankers who caused the financial meltdown, and if they broke the law, prosecute and jail them.
Support 76%
Oppose 11%
Not sure 13%
For AD-49:
Poll conducted for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee by Public Policy Polling, 282 registered voters in CA-45 surveyed Feb. 20-21, 2018. MOE +/-5.8%.
Q. Do you approve or disapprove of President Donald Trump’s job performance?
Approve 44%
Disapprove 55%
Not sure 1%
Q. If the general election for Congress were held today, and the candidates were Democrat Mike Levin and Republican Rocky Chavez, who would you be more likely to vote for?
Mike Levin 47%
Rocky Chavez 39%
Not sure 13%
Q. Which party do you believe stands more on the side of working people, Democrats or Republicans?
Democrats 50%
Republicans 43%
Not sure 7%
Now I’m going to ask you about some proposals being offered by candidates for Congress. After each, please tell me if you support or oppose it. Here’s the first one:
Q. Increase Social Security benefits and pay for that increase by having the wealthy pay the same rate into Social Security as everyone else.
Support 58%
Oppose 17%
Not sure 25%
Q. Allow the government to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, which could save over a hundred billion dollars per year for taxpayers and seniors.
Support 82%
Oppose 7%
Not sure 11%
Q. Invest a trillion dollars to create millions of new good-paying jobs by investing in our roads, bridges, schools, clean water, and jobs of the future like solar and broadband.
Support 71%
Oppose 11%
Not sure 18%
Q. Enact a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare.
Support 51%
Oppose 34%
Not sure 14%
Q. Give all Americans the choice of buying health insurance through Medicare or private insurers, which would provide competition for insurance companies and more options for consumers.
Support 67%
Oppose 15%
Not sure 18%
Q. Create a publicly-owned not-for-profit pharmaceutical company to compete against private drug companies, to create more competition in the marketplace and stop big drug companies from jacking up prices for our seniors.
Support 58%
Oppose 20%
Not sure 22%
Q. Provide federal financial assistance to states to make public colleges and universities more affordable, so that all students have access to debt-free college education in America.
Support 51%
Oppose 31%
Not sure 17%
Q. Save billions of dollars reversing tax cuts for the rich and eliminating tax loopholes for large corporations, and use that money to make long-term investments in rebuilding our roads, bridges, and schools.
Support 61%
Oppose 24%
Not sure 15%
Q. Overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and pass other laws to curb the influence of big-money in our politics.
Support 56%
Oppose 18%
Not sure 26%
Q. Protect Net Neutrality, the rule that protects equal access to the Internet, so that your phone or cable company cannot pick which websites work fast or slowly on your computer based on which company pays them the most money.
Support 75%
Oppose 13%
Not sure 11%
Q. Enact strong consumer protections so families are not ripped off or thrown into debt by the fine print used by credit card companies, big banks, and predatory lenders.
Support 66%
Oppose 11%
Not sure 23%
Q. Fully investigate the Wall Street bankers who caused the financial meltdown, and if they broke the law, prosecute and jail them.
Support 77%
Oppose 7%
Not sure 16%
Q. Fully investigate Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election, and if any Americans broke the law, prosecute and jail them.
Support 69%
Oppose 23%
Not sure 8%
These polls obviously have some good information about voter preferences on issues, and for that I do thank PCCC, as well as for what looks like solid and straightforward polling in CA-45. But overall, given whichever explanation they adopt regarding omitting Applegate from their CA-49 poll, this is very disappointing — except for PCCC’s inadvertently reinforcing the likelihood of an Applegate victory.
I reported on that Survey USA poll in the comments section last night, I guess you didn’t see. Yes, Doug IS beating Mike 2-to-1 in more credible polls. And he’s 1 point ahead of Rocky too.
The Liberal OC’s Dan C put up a stupid story yesterday that totally SPECULATED that Doug might drop out of the C-49 race and go for San Diego Board of Supes instead. This morning he discovered that the deadline to file for Supervisor has passed. So did Dan say, “My bad, it was a dumb rumor that I believed and passed along, maybe I’ll even take down the story?” Of course not. He says, “I guess Doug can’t read the calendar.” ‘Tard.
He’s also as I mentioned last night, started to drag out the old Issa-invented slander about Doug’s old marriage. I’m sure the moment he hears about this latest parody of a poll, he’ll slap that right up on the Fib OC as well.
Desperation creates flop sweat.
This post will be read widely — please don’t edit it and don’t forget to boost it on FB — so out of politesse I’m going to omit discussion of “PR Professional” Dan’s relationship with the truth.
I’ve invited Adam Green to post here. He wrote me privately in response to a message (he had not yet read this post), and while I don’t want to quote him he reminded me of the folly of unnecessary attributions to others intentions. I can accept that. I think that reaching your hand into OC politics risks contact poisoning — and it can happen to the best of them, a category in which I include PCCC. I think that for “local informants” he was perhaps relying on people whose intentions CAN fairly be judged ill. It happens.
I think I can read between those lines.
You in SD yet?
Nope. I was going to be arriving around now, but all of this has taken up a lot more of my time than expected. As I said, this post was going to be a 10 minute job — turned out to be more like three hours once you throw in sharing it and talking to Adam Green.
I’ve now spoken to Adam Green. He denies any ill intent and explained that most of the polls that they did at the same time as the CA-49 poll were intended to show that the “issue environment” was one that made it safe to take progressive positions on issues this year. The CA-45 poll was the sole exception, where their primary motive was to see how Katie Porter was doing in this district — and that explains what I think looks like a sinister juxtaposition (whether or not it is one.) He readily admits that the timing of the release — in which I’ve been complicit, even if not with the desired effect — was to influence delegates votes in today’s votes.
I’m partially satisfied with his explanation (regarding the CA-45/49 juxtaposition) and partially not. The decision to endorse Levin, followed by the decision to (wittingly or not) bolster the party establishment’s narrative that Levin is the one to watch and Applegate can be dismissed — the teeth of which are broken by the SDUT poll — is very wrong-headed and the effect behind it is corrosive, whatever it’s intent. Levin is not progressive other than by OC’s odd definition of the term as “culturally libertarian,” while Applegate embodies its traditional economic reformist elements. The endorsement was bad enough — compounding it in the way this poll has, whatever its intent, simply compounds the error. I told him that I just flat-out didn’t WANT to know who he had been in touch with to get his information out here — I’d like to be relatively relaxed before my two-hour drive! — but that we can talk about that soon.
In summary: good guy, probably got a bit duped, and the juxtaposition (which included two OC seats out of only three reported) is informing in its time and its effect, even if it was not intended as being as dismissive of Applegate as it appears. I wish that they’d just stuck to issue polling if that was what they cared about rather than — how does the media put it? — “meddling in our elections.” And I hope that as many delegates as possible read this post before they vote this afternoon.
Boy. Thanks for that.
Can you please tell us how else to vote and what we should wear, how about dinner instructions too…….
You should wear a shirt and underwear made of wolf hair. You should eat nothing but thistles for dinner. This is customized for you alone, of course.
Tell me what districts you’re in and eventually I’ll have a full set of recommendations.
Did you do a post on the Levin Eleven? These are the eleven progressive Democratic Party delegates that the Levin campaign tried to have removed as delegates before the convention because they were not going to endorse Levin. And, where is the story about conservative charter-school king Bill Bloomfield spending over $80,000 on mailers for Levin? And why did the CTA endorse Levin when he is being bankrolled by a guy intent on destroying teachers’ unions?
The PCCC endorsement is outrageous, but the outrage continues.