Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

NY Times Slaps Hahn

Times Header




From the NY Times:
Pete's Café and Bar is an upscale place on a decidedly downscale corner in downtown Los Angeles. It is only four blocks from City Hall, so Mayor James K. Hahn thought it would be a good place to meet one recent afternoon.

This could be the start of a great "guy walks into a bar" story, except it has no punch line. The mayor of the second-largest city in America entered Pete's with two bodyguards and a press aide, and nothing happened. No heads turned, no conversations stopped, no well-wishers or job seekers or gripers walked over to bend his ear.

The midafternoon crowd was fairly sparse, but for a mayor seeking re-election less than three weeks from now, it was not a good sign.

The NY Times on Hertzberg:

"If we had a mayor, I wouldn't be running," Mr. Hertzberg said. "The guy is just invisible."

Mr. Hertzberg, 50, is in many ways the opposite of Mr. Hahn. He is burly and gregarious, famous for hugging strangers. During an interview at Art's Deli in the Studio City neighborhood, he was repeatedly approached by customers and waitresses as he wolfed down a corned beef sandwich, a plate of new pickles and three unneeded cups of coffee.

"Everything in politics is personal," Mr. Hertzberg said. "It's all personal."

On Parks:

Many people, including aides to the mayor, characterize Mr. Parks's campaign as an act of political revenge.

"That's the farthest thing from the truth," Mr. Parks said in an interview at his headquarters. "This is about the mayor's inability to run this city. He has an answer for everything, but he doesn't have a solution for anything."

On Villaraigosa:

Mr. Villaraigosa, slender and impeccably dressed, complained over a cup of coffee at a Starbucks in the Little Tokyo district that Mr. Hahn had sunk to race-baiting in their last contest.

"I believe Jim Hahn will do and say anything to get re-elected, including his efforts to create a climate of fear," Mr. Villaraigosa said. "It will not work a second time. People know me now. I've been councilman for a year and a half."

On Alarcon:

Yet this is just what Mr. Hahn's main challengers, all Democrats, say Los Angeles lacks. His top rivals are Robert M. Hertzberg, a lawyer from the San Fernando Valley and a former speaker of the State Assembly; Bernard C. Parks, a member of the City Council and the former chief of the Police Department whom Mr. Hahn pushed out of office three years ago; and Antonio Villaraigosa, a city councilman and also a former speaker of the Assembly.
Not a typo above re: Alarcon. They didn't even include him...(OUCH!)

102 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Nothing new in that article for LA readers.

February 22, 2005 8:58 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Villaraigosa: "People know me. I have been a councilman for one and a half years." It would have been nice if the people who got to know him were in CD14. Instead the people in Washington DC, Arizona, the Westside and everywhere but CD14 have been courted by Tony since he has been a councilman. "Villaraigosa: The absentee Councilmember."

February 22, 2005 9:05 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Pacific Palisades Democratic Club endorses Villaraigosa. Eastside Democratic Club (CD14) doesn't.

February 22, 2005 9:07 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

MEAT your boss ADV only has 2 accomplishments on his tv ad. Everything else is from 4 years ago. If all he's done in 2 years in set up (BIG LIE)80 neighborhood watches and having his community pick up brooms that's a great reason why he shouldn't be elected and definitely RECALLED.

February 22, 2005 9:47 AM  

Anonymous 3rdFloorGuy said:

"Villaraigosa: The absentee Councilmember."

Ain't it the truth. Everytime Tony meets with the media, its at an upscale place NOT in his district.

MEAT tell us why this is. Is your boss embarassed of his district OR can he not find it?

February 22, 2005 10:13 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If this mayoral race has shown us anything its that the candidates are not building their own base, but rather reaching out to areas throughout the city. Hertzberg is going to the Eastside. Villaraigosa is going to the Westside and the Valley. Parks is going to the Valley. Alarcon is going to the Eastside, and Hahn is wandering in the wilderness.

This whole biz about Villaraigosa not getting some local endorsements is being blown up. Hetzberg is not getting endorsements from everyone in the Valley including people you think would be aligned with him. Same goes for Parks and Alarcon. This is a race for votes and endorsements. Everybody is competing for the same thing.

February 22, 2005 11:02 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

MEAT here we go again. Your boss Attention Deficit Villaraigosa just asked to be excused in council for FGeb. 28th, March 1,2,3 and I think 9th. Again, for personal reasons. More time not doing his job. We're not even through February and he's asking for time off. Shumck

February 22, 2005 11:23 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What's really amazing about Villaraigosa is his attack on Hahn, "he'll do anythhing and say anything to get elected."

You know what they say, "it takes one to know one."

Villaraigosa was the first to put this into practice, "I'm not running for Mayor, trust me."

Yeah right.

February 22, 2005 11:33 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

prevent him from getting into the run-off -- if you can't deliver on that simple promise then stop blogging.

I'll deliver him into the run-off -- if not, i'll stop blogging. Anyone else care to make this deal?

blog away dum-dums

February 22, 2005 11:37 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

NO CREDIBILITY MEAT. Where's the list of the recall emails MEAT? Just another broken promise. It must be a Villaraigosa thing.

February 22, 2005 11:57 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

How many times are we allowed to vote for the dumbest council person? I've voted 15 times (and, I'm not part of the recall AV group) and split my votes between LaBonge and Garcetti.

February 22, 2005 12:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Yea--new poll! New poll! New poll! I'm sick of the old one! How about the best/worst campaign ad?

February 22, 2005 12:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"I'll deliver him into the run-off," said Meat.

Not his driver; his delivery-boy.

February 22, 2005 1:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Worse tv ad by Attention Deficit Villaraigosa having to put things from his days as assemblyman cause all he's done since council member is make his community pick up brooms and lying through his teeth about creating 80 neighborhood watches that everyone agrees don't exist. Pretty pathetic

February 22, 2005 1:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I KNEW someone was cheating for LaBonge. ADV should have four times as many votes as him.

February 22, 2005 1:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Meat, you don't understand - if Antonio gets into the runoff we have to blog TWICE as much as before, not LESS.

Signed, your friends -
"Los dueños de cinco tabernas sórdidas"

February 22, 2005 1:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Blogger said: "This whole biz about Villaraigosa not getting some local endorsements is being blown up. Hetzberg is not getting endorsements from everyone in the Valley... (etc.)

Not a fair comparison, at all. The "Eastside" is much smaller than the Valley or South L.A., and Villaraigosa represents a major portion of it. This is not true of any of the other candidates in comparison to the areas you cite, with the exception of Hahn -- who has the most endorsements of all. Also, there is only one candidate FROM the Eastside, AV; There are two from the Valley and two from South L.A. Both those constituencies have two "locals" to choose from among major candidates -- AV's area does not. The endorsements were his to lose -- and he did.

February 22, 2005 1:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Noon has come and gone, MEAT. Where is your list of emails from the recall people? Another broken promise of MEAT.

February 22, 2005 2:42 PM  

Blogger Mayor Sam said:

MEAT has posted some message in regards to the Recall Tony Villar campaign that included the email addresses of many people who I have no idea who they are nor do they want their addresses posted on my blog.

Therefore, I have deleted MEAT's post and he can repost the other information if he wants.

Please do not post like this again MEAT.

February 22, 2005 3:32 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is the famous email! Is MEAT a moron or what? And I think MEAT should check with an attorney about the legality of his not so veiled threats.

February 22, 2005 3:34 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

MEAT you are truly a fool. I know of sooooo many more people who are part of the recall that aren't on this e-mail group list. Many of them live in CD14. Interesting you didn't post what the e-mail said. Why is your boss going to be out so much? These tired excuses from council are ridiculous

February 22, 2005 3:38 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Looks like Survey USA / KABC will be posting a poll on the Mayor's race at 6pm today.

Go Bob!

http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html

February 22, 2005 3:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

Posted what people want -- giving the folks what they want since 1986.

i thought it was wrong as well to post so much info -- but these damn bloggers need to gargle with blades before they challenge me again.

blog away dum-dums

smart move sam.

February 22, 2005 3:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The same poll supposedly leaked to AV's team (only) more than a week ago? If that's the case, how can it possibly be trusted. What impartial pollster tips one camp days early and expects to maintain an image of fairness. Spare me - even if it is good for everyone by Tony V., it's been grossly compromised (or AVs people lied on their Website). Either way, it's a black eye for the Eastside's "comeback kid."

February 22, 2005 3:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

MEAT "Help me, Mayor Sam - save me before I post irresponsibly again!"

February 22, 2005 3:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

its not over for mayor poopie yet. he still has some tricks up his sleeve before he's laid to rest in the pooper scooper! don't forget that la city govt is the king of backstabbing-smile in your face-pat on the back-double cross!!
c-u in the voting booth!!

tomcat...

February 22, 2005 3:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Is MEAT stupid or what? That was an email anybody could see on a public listserve! But you may have crossed a line MEAT with the threat about exposing the recipients backgrounds. Now we see what Villaraigosa supporters are like! Please don't complain anymore about the tactics of Hahn or anybody else.

February 22, 2005 3:59 PM  

Blogger SacramentoNighties said:

I didn't see the e-mail list posted, but I can guarantee none of my contacts, none of the activists providing me info, or anyone on the rapidly growing list of generally disatisfied constituents I overhear daily are included yet. The recall effort has just started to scratch the surface of the discontent among CD14 people -- who consider ADV® to be a has-been mayoral candidate from 2001 and a never-was capable councilmember from 2003.

February 22, 2005 4:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

Not True -- the poll Channel 7 did last week was just favorable and unfavorable. And here are those numbers.

Villaraigosa – 43% favorable, 22% unfavorable, +21% net
Hahn – 32% favorable, 37% unfavorable, -5% net
Parks – 39% favorable, 31% unfavorable, +8% net

But these new poll numbers are 100% new and there was no leak.

So at 6pm today when Channel 7 releases their poll (survey USA) whatever the results are know this.

This poll got the mayor's race DEAD on 4 years ago.
This poll got the last governor's race DEAD on.
You can go on their website and look at all the races they've done all over the country.
This poll includes people that have cell phones - which traditional polling misses.
This poll also is sterile in its questions since its not a human asking - it takes away from any human biases.
Also with the LA Times and ABC 7 being the only objective media outlets out there --- these are the only polls the public will hear about -- the rest of the polling is all internal with their biases.

Also note that this is the first poll to take into account all of the TV ads by all the candidates, so its a fair more across the board poll.

blog away dum-dums

February 22, 2005 4:19 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I have good reason to believe that this News 7 poll will show exactly what AV's leaked poll (that he refused to release for obvious reasons) showed. That Bob has shot past Hahn and is neck-and-neck with AV. Bob and AV - mid 20s. Hahn, low 20s. You heard it here first.

February 22, 2005 4:32 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Meat said: "Not True -- the poll Channel 7 did last week was just favorable and unfavorable. And here are those numbers."

These were never posted anywhere but Villaraigosa's campaign site. Why? Because they are lies, and were not from ABC. The numbers are MEAT's wet dream.

February 22, 2005 4:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Of course they were lies. Someone should call KABC and prove it! Then we can nail MEAT's ass!.

But these numbers are really going to be posted. By a respectable polling firm. Finally, we'll be able to put an end to all of MEAT's lies!

February 22, 2005 4:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I just did a search on KABC TV and the only polls that come up on mayoral race is back in 2001. MEAT where did you get those numbers? Guys,. think he's lying again

February 22, 2005 4:54 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

Dude, call ABC.

blog away

February 22, 2005 4:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Well all you people will be able to see the poll soon. Then you can get into your little war rooms about begin the spin. I am sure we will see some surprises in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th slots.

February 22, 2005 4:56 PM  

Blogger J. Harriman said:

Nighty opines: "The recall effort has just started to scratch the surface of the discontent among CD14 people."

Let's see, you started this recall back in, when, August?, September? and you're just beginning to scratch the surface? Tempis fugit guys.

February 22, 2005 4:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

2005 SurveyUSA Election Polls

Los Angeles Mayor Primary Poll Released Today at 21:00 ET

http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html

That's from the site. Check it out yourselves when it is posted at 6:00 pm PST

February 22, 2005 5:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Not their fault the "surface" keeps getting bigger every day. Blame that on Tony V. and his out-of-town, out-of-touch field staff. ADV is like a bad rash, the more you "scratch" the surface the bigger the unhappiness grows.

February 22, 2005 5:06 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Harriman, you're about as ignorant of the recall as MEAT is. The idea of the recall started in late October early November. Let's wait until May. Villaraigosa could be mayor or he could be recalled. My money is on the latter.
RhA

February 22, 2005 5:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

HOW ODD! Well, here's one thing you don't have to wait on -- the same day the real ABC numbers are supposed to be revealed, the Tony V. website buries the unreal one's they've been crowing about (but had no backing for or proof of). Those numbers have been big and bold, front and center, UNTIL today. Wonder why?

February 22, 2005 5:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Harriman took the bait again. . .

February 22, 2005 5:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

While i have no idea what Channel 7 is going to say about their numbers, as someone that watched them poll 4 years ago i can tell you their numbers were the most accurate.

I don't know why Antonio's campaign hid the old the numbers from the Channel 7 poll -- perhaps bad news is coming out.

Either way i want to say right now for the record -- being 5 points ahead or below Hahn is still a position from which a lot of things can happen. This race is just getting ramped up and the voters are just beggining to pay attention.

Anything outside of the 5 point margin (alarcon?? perhaps too low) shouldn't be accounted for anymore and just be assumed the truth.

blog away

February 22, 2005 5:19 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

i personally think these poll numbers are the hardest to spin, since they include everyone's ad buys and the recall has had enough time to taint the city-wide perspective on Antonio.

On a side note -- the Hahn campaign begin their tracking last night -- if you are a Hahn campaign hack, ask Kam - he told me. Your polling should be finished on thursday night -- with fresh numbers for friday morning -- meaning -- a change in the ad buy this weekend??? we shall see.

blog away dum-dums

February 22, 2005 5:22 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

WRONGGG AGAIN, meat, you just said: "This poll got the mayor's race DEAD on 4 years ago."

ABC's own report after the primary said: "The poll. . . projected Villaraigosa to come in first with 31% of the vote. His actual total as of Wednesday morning is 30%. The poll put City Attorney James Hahn in second place and businessman Steve Soboroff in third place. Their actual totals were within the poll's 3% margin-of-error."

Within a 3 percent margin of error is NOT "dead on." Last's year's presidential results were within a 3 percent margin of error -- either way you went.

February 22, 2005 5:25 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"...the recall has had enough time to taint the city-wide perspective on Antonio."

NO meat, you can't play both sides -- you said the recall was inconsequential, means nothing, just a handful of bitter nasties. Make up you tiny little mind.

February 22, 2005 5:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

3% is a huge margin of error when you have at least 3 candidates (maybe more) polling in the low- to mid-20s and several others in the race. A close 3-way or even 4-way with a 3-point margin means the poll is practically useless, unless it shows at least a 5-7 point spread (like last time), between any of the leading 3. Otherwise, best it can do is predict which of the 4-5 majors won't be in the top three, and that may just invigorate and Alarcon or Parks base more.

February 22, 2005 5:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

36 - 19- 15 -14 - 6.

this just in from jim hahn camp, poll had margin of error of 18.

please, try spinning this one meateaters. let me guess,

"we always knew that ADV would be first in the primary, we didn't want to be first anyways"

"just wait until the recall kicks in"

"ABC is a biased poll slanted 17 points in favor of ADV"

pleeeeeeeeeeeeese!

February 22, 2005 5:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

ADV was first last time in the primary -- second in the general (against a BORING candidiate). The former makes it interesting; the latter makes you mayor.

February 22, 2005 5:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

Who posted those numbers??

Whose where?

And to the above poster that claims ABC poll wasn't dead on -- are you saying that the poll which had Antonio at 31% and he came in at 30% -- just so you know -- no poll not even Antonio's internals had him anywhere near 30% they had him below.

The ABC survey poll was the best objective poll out there -- it was dead on when claiming who was in 1st 2nd and 3rd. So all i am saying is wherever anyone is -- survey USA isn't that far off the real tally.

blog away dum-dums

February 22, 2005 5:55 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

The poll results are up - you are all dum-dums.

http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html

I don't need to say a damn thing -- i'll just smile and read how crazy each and everyone of you guys sound.

blog away dum-dums

February 22, 2005 5:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

The poll results are up - you are all dum-dums.

http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html

I don't need to say a damn thing -- i'll just smile and read how crazy each and everyone of you guys sound.

blog away dum-dums

February 22, 2005 5:57 PM  

Blogger Anon-in-the-know said:

So much work to do. . . (but small sample and 5 percent margin of error).

http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html#top

Los Angeles Mayoral Primary 2/22/2005
Villaraigosa 36%
Hahn 19%
Parks 15%
Hertzberg 14%
Alarcon 6%
Other/Undecided 10%
Data Collected 2/19/05 - 2/21/05
Geography City of Los Angeles
Sample Population 409 Likely Voters
Margin of Error 4.9%
Client KABC-TV Los Angeles

February 22, 2005 5:58 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Do you think they telephoned 400 people in Mount Washington?

February 22, 2005 6:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Yes, AV is first (like last time - 2001), #s 2-3-4 are within margin of error, so no real change as far as knowing who he will face. Each one is acceptable to a broader spectrum of L.A.'s voting population. Villaraigosa's is the most uphill battle of any here.

February 22, 2005 6:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

There are not enough undecideds left to keep this from going into a runoff, but I doubt any one observing thought that would happen anyway.

February 22, 2005 6:06 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

http://www.surveyusa.com/electiontrackrecord.html

For those of you who care about facts and not just statements that aren't supported by hard facts that count, and if you have a few minutes to spare, you should check out Survey USA's track record. It's worth reading.

Try to spin the numbers however you want (e.g. - did all the 400 come from Mt. Washington?), but with reliables sources putting out information, that should hold me off until the true numbers come out on March 9th - regardless of what they are.

February 22, 2005 6:08 PM  

Blogger J. Harriman said:

Here are the numbers from the Survey USA website.

I don't have much to add- this is kind of the self-spinning poll.


Los Angeles Mayoral Primary 2/22/2005

Villaraigosa 36%
Hahn 19%
Parks 15%
Hertzberg 14%
Alarcon 6%
Other/Undecided 10%
Data Collected 2/19/05 - 2/21/05
Geography City of Los Angeles
Sample Population 409 Likely Voters
Margin of Error 4.9%
Client KABC-TV Los Angeles

February 22, 2005 6:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

Dum-dum said "Each one is acceptable to a broader spectrum of L.A.'s voting population. Villaraigosa's is the most uphill battle of any here".

Makes the hill that much smaller when according to this poll Antonio is getting 30% of the conservative vote, 32% of the moderate vote and 45% of the liberal vote. So i suppose when that previous blogger said each one is acceptable to a broader spectrum -- i suppose he was meaning Antonio -- the only candidate who has solid numbers in every category.

Dum-Dums - please continue.

MEAT is smiling.

blog away!

February 22, 2005 6:10 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

WHY such a small sampling? The same poll used 1200 likely voters last time, nearly 3X as many?

February 22, 2005 6:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Now I know the poll is screwy... Mr. ACLU himself is getting 30 percent of the conservative vote. Please, conservatives from what parellel universe. You may be able to make water down my leg, but please don't try and tell me it's rain!

February 22, 2005 6:13 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

Helloooo where are all the haters? Is anyone here?

weeeaaaak -- where's Sac nighties? where's the pacoima gangster?

June you there???

dum-dums

blog away.

February 22, 2005 6:36 PM  

Blogger SacramentoNighties said:

Considering the margin of error and very small sampling, not a total surprise -- he's been on top (1 or 2) pretty much since he announced. I've said repeatedly (not that anyone would stop bashing Hahn long enough to listen), that Attention-Deficit Villaraigosa would probably be in a runoff -- just like last time -- and probably get the most votes in the primary -- just like last time, with similar final results. The silver lining this time (boy this WILL be fun to watch), is he's now going to be the A-number-1 target of every other campaign for the weeks on end. Millions of dollars in campaign contributions trained on Truthless Tony Villaraigosa. BOY, is ADV® a broad target -- and I don't mean personal attacks. If you thought Hahn had baggage and enemies from four years in city hall.... WOW!This will be fun. . . I may have to quit my night job at the sleazy bar.

February 22, 2005 6:36 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

Wrong again night light --

With the race for second so close, Bob and Company will still try to tear off Hahn's head for that coveted 2nd position.

Wasting negative money and TV time on AV won't guarantee a second place finish for them.

Hahn sees Bob has his threat, so he squashes him -- Parks and Richard ran out of money, so they can't even put on a paid campaign -- this is all about bob and jimmy. They each bash each -- and all Antonio has to do is smile with a positive vision for LA --

blog away nite lite.

February 22, 2005 6:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I REALLY don't know what you're crowing about MEAT. You've been wrong on every set of numbers you've spouted for weeks. You are still the king of faked and fraudulent digits on this blog, and Tony V.'s people have had to come in and clean up your mess more than once to keep you from harming THEIR credibility. You can't take credit for even posting these. Yeah, your boy's ahead at this point -- he was 4 years ago, too. Remember how that turned out?

You still can count for shit!

February 22, 2005 6:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Not only are you speaking now for ADV's camp, you're explaining in your infinite wisdom (based on your incredibly accurate track here) what every other camp will do next. Stick to the one group you actually have some insight into.

February 22, 2005 6:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Dear Friends,



Today, KABC is releasing a poll showing Antonio Villaraigosa in first with 36 percent and Bob in a tight race for second with Hahn at 19, Parks at 15 and Hertzberg at 14. Given that KABC uses a polling outfit, SurveyUSA, that is widely discredited by political professionals and academics alike because of the firm's dubious methodology, the KABC findings should be considered deeply flawed.



In fact, SurveyUSA has been very wrong in LA primaries before. Just three weeks before the 2001 primary, SurveyUSA said that Hahn was beating Villaraigosa by 12. Villaraigosa ended up beating Hahn by 6.



Our own poll, conducted 2 weeks ago, shows Bob tied for second with Hahn at 20 percent – a jump of 10 points for Bob since December -- while Antonio's poll apparently shows that Bob is in second, 5 points ahead of Hahn. As a result, we expect Hahn's political consultants to launch their televised attack on Bob very soon.



There is plenty more evidence about SurveyUSA and a lot of it follows -- but rest assured, we are confident that these results don’t accurately reflect the momentum of the campaign.


SurveyUSA does not use a live person to administer their surveys. The questions are asked by a computer-generated digitally record voice. Responses are recorded via the keypad on the respondent's phone. In the words of Michael Traugott, chair of the Communications Studies Department at the University of Michigan and an expert on political polling, one of the "limiting factors" in this kind of polling is that the polling firm, he said, "has no idea who is on the other end of the phone. It could be a kid or someone who doesn't live at that address."



SurveyUSA chooses who to call on the basis of their phone number, rather than by selecting from a list of actual voters. This kind of sampling, known as Random Digit Dial, relies on voters to tell the truth about whether they are likely to vote in the election in question. In high turnout elections, this is not much of a problem -- the respondent really is likely to vote. But in low turnout elections like the one happening next month, non-voters are more inclined to lie and give the socially desirable response -- "of course I plan to vote" -- than admit that they never actually make it to the polls.



In low turnout elections, RDD sampling introduces bias. Candidates with low name recognition are even less well known by non-voters than they are by likely voters. In other words, an RDD survey in a low turnout election will overstate the strength of a well-known candidate -- like Jim Hahn or Bernard Parks -- and understate the strength of a less well-known candidate -- like Bob Hertzberg.



Taken together, these methodological flaws suggest why the SurveyUSA survey is showing Bob in 4th even as today's LA Times reports on Bob being one of the three top candidates "locked in an increasingly complex game of chicken."



Jim Hahn knows the one candidate standing between him and the runoff is Bob Hertzberg.


Respectfully yours,


LA Confidential

Contributions or gifts to Bob Hertzberg For A Great LA are not deductible for income tax purposes.

Bob Hertzberg for A Great LA, 5445 Balboa Blvd. suite #118, Encino, CA. 91316

Paid for by Bob Hertzberg For A Great LA, ID# 1265178

February 22, 2005 6:50 PM  

Blogger SacramentoNighties said:

Assuming MEAT's predictions about what will happen in the battle for second place are even somewhat correct (I know, I know -- that's asking a lot of anyone, but just for the sake of argument), that's only for the next 13 days. Phase 2, excited little one, Phase 2...

It's 3-4 times as long, and 10 times as nasty. ADV® has nowhere good to go after that. Primary polling numbers mean nothing in less than 2 weeks, and ADV®'s history of failure as a citywide candidate mean EVERYTHING.

February 22, 2005 6:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

Really AV's people have had to come in and clean up my stuff -- interesting.

As for the me ponitficating on what the other camps will or will not do, sorry buddy, when you know that the Hahn campaign had thier first night of tracking last night and probably through thursday night. When you know that this means they may change their ad flight morning after the conference call where their new numbers are revealed, i will post it. When you were the first blogger to post that Hertzberg would call for greaking up the LAUSD a week before anyone else, i'll post that too.
If i feel like unloading on Alarcon, i'll do that, Parks raising 100k by shaking down the local liquor store owners in his district - i'll post that too.

Wrong or right, mostly if not always right, i'll speak the truth and not let you dum-dums spout your dum-dum conspiracy theories.

For the record i knew the ABC numbers before every campaign, but thats not here nor there, its just me toying with you guys all day and having fun watching you guys think AV was going to do bad.

blog away dum-dums.

February 22, 2005 6:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The Villaraigosa campaign has apparently disavowed the numbers just cited in Bob's email. You'd think Bob would have known that, especially since this blog thread is posted in his Daily Digest...

http://www.lavoice.org/article559.html

Just for the record, the numbers you attribute to Antonio's internal polling are wrong. Sample size too.

Parke Skelton

Parke - can you supply the correct numbers?

Mack Reed

Sorry, we're not releasing tracks -- they are just a snapshot, and this race is still in flux. But the numbers here - and on Mayor Sam - are wrong.

Parke

February 22, 2005 7:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"Really AV's people have had to come in and clean up my stuff -- interesting."

(That's called a non-denial denial, for you non-politicals. Check the archives... They stepped in here several weeks ago, and then, when this blog became too anti-Villaraigosa, they started posting corrections to MEAT's madness through LAObserved and others.

February 22, 2005 7:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

HEY MEAT KFI is slamming your boss big time. They are calling him a Mexican socialist. They nailed him on Prop 227 and stated that Antonio wants to keep poor immigrant kids from learning English and away from mainstream although Prop 227 is showing high figures that its been successful with immigrant kids. Jill Stewart did a great op-ed in today's Daily News on the issue. KFI keep saying that Latinos would be stupid to vote for Antonio. Sounds like they really don't like him. They also mention that blacks won't vote for ADV because blacks are only 11% and don't want Latinos who have over taken their communities in a high position. Makes sense.

February 22, 2005 7:10 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

MEAT: "Villaraigoisa has an 81 percent approval rating in CD14"

Prove it. . .("Um, well, don't get excited, calm down, they were just general numbers, not really about anyone or anything specific... DUH!)

These KABC numbers are not yours --not even close to what you posted earlier, and these, today were posted by other's first You get no credit.

Your guy's ahead, probably always has been, and you're his worst enemy on this blog. Without MEAT on Mayor Sam's, there would be no constant, growing rush to reveal ADV's shortcomings on City Council and in the district. Hertzberg owes you a debt or gratitude and big Hug!

February 22, 2005 7:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

From the other side...

http://www.surveyusa.com/electiontrackrecord.html

SurveyUSA 12-Year Election Poll Track Record

Since inception in 1992, how has SurveyUSA done compared to other pollsters?


SurveyUSA’s public opinion polling work stands everyday alongside the best work done by the largest and most prestigious research firms in the country. Since inception in 1992, SurveyUSA has polled on 604 separate election contests (as of 1/28/05).


Every time SurveyUSA forecasts the outcome of an election, we compare that forecast to the actual outcome on Election Day. In so doing, we are able to measure precisely how accurate SurveyUSA’s pre-election polls are. In addition, for every election that SurveyUSA polls, we analyze the final forecast for each of the pollsters we compete against. In so doing, we are able to measure precisely how accurate our competition’s pre-election forecasts are.


Because SurveyUSA uses professional television news anchormen and anchorwomen to ask our poll questions, instead of headset operators, some of our competitors would like you to believe that SurveyUSA’s election polls are inferior. There is no need for conjecture on this topic. The evidence is right here. Study the data; draw your own conclusions.


The tool we have created is an Interactive Election Scorecard. Using it, you will be able to create your own on-the-fly, custom analysis of SurveyUSA’s work. For example, you can use the Interactive Election Scorecard to answer questions such as:

Show me how SurveyUSA has done against all pollsters against whom it has competed on 10 or more occasions.

Show me how SurveyUSA has done against Mason-Dixon Polling and Research using the measurement “Mosteller 2.”

Show me how SurveyUSA has done against the Los Angeles Times Poll on all methods of measurement.

Show me how SurveyUSA has done against the Keystone Poll using the measurement “Mosteller 5.”
It is important to keep in mind that SurveyUSA's 12-Year Interactive Election Scorecard is not a marketing document. It does not selectively include only SurveyUSA's best work, nor does it selectively exclude the competition's best work. Rather, the Interactive Election Scorecard is exhaustive: every SurveyUSA election poll is included, good and bad, since SurveyUSA began polling in 1992, and every known poll conducted by a competing pollster is included. In this way, the Interactive Election Scorecard is a scientific measurement of SurveyUSA's performance. You can search the Internet: no other pollster, academic or commercial, publishes an election report card similar to this. The Interactive Election Scorecard may challenge “conventional wisdom” and the opinion of some “experts” who have written about SurveyUSA.

February 22, 2005 7:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

So your point is SurveyUSA believes SurveyUSA is a good poll. You didn't have to post 800 words to say that. Let me save you 3000 more wasted words. Hahn thinks Hahn is a great mayor. ADV thinks ADV would have been a good mayor. Hertzberg thinks he will be the next great mayor of L.A. Parks thinks he was a great police chief. Alarcon thinks he's a great senator and. . . (so what's YOUR point). Did you think the pollsters would put up on their site "yeah, out stuff could be wrong, and some people say it is -- but nobody will pay us big money if we say that, so...). No wonder you buy the ADV patter - hook, line, and sinker. I'll bet you think he "really loves this city," too. Believe, MEAT, believe --and someday ADV and Jiminy Cricket will help make you a real, live campaign consultant.

February 22, 2005 7:20 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

I think someone needs a nap.

All i was doing was was rebutting what the Hertzberg campaign e-mail said, i don't blame them for saying what they said. As it was the same line mark mellman blurted out 4 years ago when the Survey USA poll first was used. The fact is that poll proved to be the most accurate, in the primary and the run-off.

A previous poster said that the general campaign is different than the primary. i agree. I think if this race is between Antonio and an honorary member of the Gotti family, i think his chances are good.

blog away

February 22, 2005 7:29 PM  

Blogger dgarzila said:

should hahnistas be worried with those numbers?

February 22, 2005 7:30 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"The fact is that poll proved to be the most accurate, in the primary and the run-off."

With 3-times the sampling -- don't forget.

February 22, 2005 7:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The most accurate - of how many? Vs. candidates internal numbers? If you're going to say "better than" or "best of" you have to end the sentence with something specific... otherwise it's a useless claim.

February 22, 2005 7:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I think the 30% conservatives thought they were voting for Villaraigosa's RECALL.

February 22, 2005 7:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Get real, meat, you can't seriously believe ADV won't immediately start taking a beating from all sides after numbers like that are posted -- valid or not? Do you really think Hertzberg and Alarcon and Parks have been beating up on Hahn for the last 3 months because they wanted to knock HIM out of second and take his place. The top dog is the target, whether you have $5 to spend, or $5 million. All campaigns shift, starting now. BOOM!

February 22, 2005 7:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I partially agree with ANON AT 7:52 PM's post about Hahn getting beat up for the last 3 months by everybody because they want to knock HIM down.

But the difference is that everybody was trying to set themselves apart from the rest, while trying to make sure that everybody knew that they are a contender. But the reality is that this part of the race isn't for 1 slot, but rather for 2. If the campaigns are looking at these numbers seriously (as all candidates should, no matter where they fell in the list), their mission will be to make it into round 2.

With that being the first major obstacle, and if the incumbent Mayor falls within the margin of error to your candidate, you better damn know that they're going to go after them before going after somebody who seems to be clearly ahead of the pack.

Anybody agree, or disagree? Please blog away so that we can have some good discussions here.

February 22, 2005 8:23 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

For the first time on this blog, I agree with MEAT. Hahn and Hertzberg will go at each other for the 2nd spot. What's the point of hitting Villaraigosa t this late stage. The race was always Hahn versus Hertzberg - you couldn't have two white guys in a runoff in LA when a a strong Latino is in the mix. That's why Villaraigosa jumped in the race, I presume. Anyway, we are where we are. Villaraigosa could be mayor in May and recalled in May. That would be something for the history and record books

February 22, 2005 8:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

I agree with the above posters regarding the race -- if you are bob with limited money and see that the distance between you and the run-off is 5 points or less, than you go after Hahn.

Perhaps if you are Alarcon whose voters are in the Villaraigosa camp and you are so far away from 2nd anyway, you might take a swipe at Antonio. Well that maybe a valid strategy i don't personally think thats Alarcon's style, he's a good guy. Doesn't mean i won't jab at him when his supporters force me to, however I think Alarcon cares more about his name ID against a potential run at Zev for the county seat, or to ensure that he can switch with Cindy when she goes for the Senate seat and he the Assembly seat. This race is a nice free ride for Richard to introduce himself to the city and more donors.

If anyone attacks Villaraigosa, Richard fits the profile, only problem is, with what money?

blog away

February 22, 2005 9:07 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I knew I wouldn't agree with you for too long MEAT. Many eastside supporters of Richard are actually supporters of the recall. No, Antonio won't be attacked by Alarcon. While Hahn and Hertzberg are going at it for the next two weeks Antonio's only concern will be the recall.

February 22, 2005 9:28 PM  

Blogger dgarzila said:

Well I am leraning a lot from all of you. This gadfly>>>>

I have learned that Antonio Villaraigosa does not belong as a city council person , he spent too much time in Sacramento and I have learned many people in his district have not had access to him. He is used to being left alone and not having to have tons of consituents molesting him. The MAyor's job is all about making decisionsand not having to meet or deal with anyone on sucha a personal basis asa being a council person. SO Villaraigosa is not good at leadership by walking around, meaning he doesn't make his presence known , if that is true then , he belngs in a position in which only those who have the money to gain access can access him . So maybe he might make a good mayor.

1. he doesn't have to deal on apersonal level with constiutents, less likely to piss them off.

2. can make stoic decisions without actually seeing the faces of those who are affected.

3. Can disresepect people with his machismo attitude like talking to women any way he wants to like he did to JAnice Hahn. It was horrible the way he talked ot the priest and Janice at City Hall during the 1/2 cent sales tax debate.

4. ANd he can be all things to all people and still be well liked for the next race.

I gurantee you . The times just wants to sell papers an they are looking for another cisneros . Drama sells papers.

Myself I don't order the LA tTime sonly because they don't know the city , nor the people. BUt maybe they know cd 14 needs somoene who will be there for the duration and we all know Villaraigosa doesn't want to be around lot's of people and be so accessible like he was in sacramento. Ask his constituents. They never see him . And ask them if their trees are trimmed.

February 22, 2005 9:37 PM  

Anonymous Poulson said:

New thread, please. This is ridiculous. Did you die again, Mayor Sam? Or are you flooded. Or walking precincts for Walter Moore?

New thread now, you old corpse!

February 22, 2005 10:17 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Here's what the pros say about SurveyUSA:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/725875/posts

Dialing Up a Controversy [Survey USA Polling Firm]
by Chris Cillizza

Roll Call
8/1/02



The small community of pollsters involved in political campaigns has often been compared to the cast of a soap opera, replete with friendships and feuds, couplings and partings that often span decades.

Survey USA, the leading firm in automated telephone polling, is the self-acknowledged black sheep of this family.

"I am not a member of their club," said SurveyUSA's Jay Leve, who bills himself as the firm's editor. "I don't go out of my way to solicit their blessing."

Founded in 1992, Survey USA now boasts 50 local television stations as clients, according to Leve.

And yet, a number of established news entities -including The Associated Press, The Hotline and this newspaper - have a policy of not running automated dialing polls.

Leve clearly is irked by the disdain with which his company's methodology is viewed by the polling establishment and some news organizations.

"My issue is with the ridicule and intolerance and the censure that we have had to endure from people who not only have never looked at our work but are proud of the fact they have never looked,"he said.

At issue is the technique that SurveyUSA and other "auto dial" firms such as Rasmussen Research use to cull their information.

In a traditional survey, the polling firm develops and writes the questionnaire, which is then read to potential respondents by an employee of a phone bank.

Through a conversation with the polltaker, factors such as age, voting eligibility, ethnicity and other characteristics are determined and used to develop a sample representative of the electorate.

In a SurveyUSA poll, a taped message -typically utilizing the voice of a local news anchor from the station the company has a contract with -reads the questionnaire.Respondents punch certain keys to indicate their own demographic background as well as their preferences on a given topic or candidate.

Leve believes the lack of respect his firm has received began in 1995 with an article published in Public Perspective Magazine by University of Michigan Professor Michael Traugott.

In it, Traugott coined the acronym "C.R.A.P" -computerized response audience polls - to describe his belief that the methodology used bySurveyUSA was inherently flawed.

Leve noted that at the time of the article his firm had conducted more than 1,000 surveys in 75 elections and that Traugott refused to take an automated survey before penning his article.

"How can you rebut someone who won't take a minute to look at your work?" asked Leve.

Time has not changed Traugott's opinion about SurveyUSA and other firms like it, however.

"There is no sound theoretical basis for the way in which these surveys are conducted," said Traugott in an interview Tuesday.

His concerns are twofold. First, automated dialing polls have a much lower response rate than more traditional polls, he argues; second, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to screen out people not eligible or not planning to vote.

Traugott said the poll provides "a piece of data that might be of interest to the audience, but you don't really know who the respondents are."

Leve has a ready retort to Traugott's criticism. In an attempt to fool his own poll, Leve took a survey with the goal of not cooperating with the automated voice.

"The least amount of time it was technically possible to stay on the phone was two minutes and one second," said Leve, noting that in order to achieve such a short phone call he had to press 13 buttons at "precise intervals."

Leve believes no child or uninterested adult would stay on the phone for that amount of time solely to skew the poll.

"I can't tell you it's rocket science, but it's the most basic science," explained Leve. "We lead people through a series of win-win questions designed to start with adults and end up with likely voters."

As evidence of his polls' accuracy, Leve has compiled a chart comparing the final SurveyUSA poll in the 370 elections the company has been involved in since 1992 with the final polls done by competing organizations.

In the 105 contests in which SurveyUSA has matched numbers with Mason-Dixon Polling/Media Research Inc., the long-standing king of media polling, Leve claimed their data showed his company was more accurate 54 percent of the time, Mason-Dixon was more accurate in 33 percent of the races and the companies were "comparable" 12 percent of the time.

Of the 53 polling organizations Leve has researched, only 18 scored more accurately than SurveyUSA.

Leve said he commissioned the comparative study "because we were so tired of hearing from academics and the campaign managers of trailing politicians about how fundamentally flawed our methods are."

Brad Coker, president of Mason-Dixon, said that he would like to see the release dates and specifics of his firm's matchups with Survey USA before commenting, but did refer to Survey USA as "a competitor with a small 'c.'"

When asked about the validity of the automated dial practice,Coker said: "It is hard to believe that you are going to get a cross section of people who are registered, active voters to participate in these things."

Anecdotally, Coker cited an experience in his own home to disprove automated dial polls' effectiveness.

Coker, who lives in Baltimore, received a call several years back from Survey USA, which was at that time polling for WBAL, a local NBC affiliate. He said his 9-year-old daughter picked up the phone and participated in the survey.

Chuck Todd, editor of the Hotline, a daily political tipsheet, had a similar negative experience while taking a SurveyUSA poll.

"I was able to identify myself as a 19-year-old Republican Latina," said Todd. "Live callers could be deceived by respondents, but not like that."

The Hotline has not run SurveyUSA or any other auto-dial poll results since the 1998 cycle.

Jim Jordan, executive director of the Democratic SenatorialCampaign Committee, was more blunt.

"Survey USA numbers are the polling equivalent of a college professor's quote," he said. "That is, for lazy reporters they offer the ring of authenticity while in reality being cheap, uninformed, unreliable and meaningless."

Partisan pollsters are less willing to directly criticize Survey USA, choosing instead to focus on the differing aspects of the work they do.

"What they are doing is figuring out who is going to win, what we are doing is figuring out how to win," said Republican pollster Glen Bolger, a partner in Public Opinion Strategies.

Fred Yang, a pollster with the Democratic Garin Hart Yang Research Group, agreed with Bolger's assessment.

"That's why political polls are much more rigorous methodologically and more expensive," he said. "The difference is we are in the business of winning elections and for that you need to have the most accurate look at the electorate, and the media is in it to make news."

February 22, 2005 10:37 PM  

Blogger J. Harriman said:

The problem with the Survey USA poll (I just looked at the crosstabs) is that they do not weight the sample to the universe of likely voters, but to the Census. That means that they have over-polled Latinos by a fairly substantial margin (and conversely under-polled whites) If their numbers are reweighted to reflect an actual likely turnout, Antonio is still way ahead -- at about 32.5% to Hahn at 19.5. Hertzberg is in third at 17.5. Parks is 15.3%. Alarcon about 5.

Thus, the race between Hahn and Hertzberg is closer,meaning it is more likely that Bob and Jimmy start tearing at one anothers eyeballs pretty soon.

February 22, 2005 10:54 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Wow. Did they really weight to the census? What percentage of LA is Latino. Fifty percent? And what percentage of the March electorate will be Latino? Twenty-five percent? That seems like a pretty big methodological problem.

February 22, 2005 11:11 PM  

Blogger FromDaCheapSeats said:

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

February 22, 2005 11:34 PM  

Blogger FromDaCheapSeats said:

If it turns out to be another Hahn Villaraigosa match up, I expect the same results as 2001.

Hahn will hammer Villaraigosa about his crappy soft on crime voting record in the Assembly and Villaraigosa will hit Hahn on being boring.

Abuse of office is dicey because Hahn can come back with Villaraigosa's support of the drug dealer as Speaker. It will work again. If Antonio is going to tout his Speaker accomplishments this invites the drug dealer letter to re-surface.

Also black voters will choose an anglo over a latino because they see latinos as a threat.

Anglo valley voters will choose an anglo over a latino for the same reason.

February 22, 2005 11:36 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

How can that be so, J. Harriman, when MEAT has told us that the Survey USA poll is always dead on? Is it right? Or is it wrong? It appears that after looking at the crosstabs, you deduce that the poll is faulty. Something most of us expected right from the beginning. So, let's us all ignore this one. Sorry MEAT but it is an easy mistake for a amateur like yourself to make.

February 22, 2005 11:39 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

From the scummy campaign quote (as related in the LA Times):

"Still, some candidates tried to turn the rain to their advantage. Hertzberg strategist John Shallman said the rain-induced disasters have reinforced Hertzberg's campaign message that the infrastructure is crumbling under the Hahn administration.

"The roads are crumbling," Shallman said. "Traffic is an absolute nightmare." "

Is Shallman going to be such a pr*ck as to blame for sliding homes, fatalities, and the rain itself, too.

I'm a AV supporter, but someone needs to call Shallman on that crap.

February 22, 2005 11:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FROM MEAT:

Was it the Census, or was it it voters? What was the sample size, the margin of error?

Whoas me, the sky is falling.

Look 4 years ago this poll was more accurate than all the other campaigns internals -- thats the truth, but whatever, i'll go with the objective LA Times and ABC news polls and you can scrape away with nothing to hold on to.

blog away dum-dums

February 23, 2005 12:35 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is way too much gloating to be anything but overcompensation -- this early in the election, supporting a guy who has never won citywide, potentially facing a guy who has never lost citywide (and has nothing to lose from going way negative again).

February 23, 2005 12:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, MEAT. And many less than great (and some good) survey/polling companies can get it right and horribly wrong once or twice (check out Zogby's recent results) but this particular survey isn't worth much. Not worth all the fuss you're making, anyway.

February 23, 2005 8:23 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

MAYOR and CHIEF are obviously in shock...

February 23, 2005 10:15 AM  

Blogger Anon-in-the-know said:

The Daily News today blesses up with a profound revelation in it's front page headline. You might want to take a seat and reach for your inhaler if you use one:

"MAYORAL HOPEFULS MAKING PROMISES"

February 23, 2005 10:18 AM  

Blogger J. Harriman said:

No poll should ever be taken at face value - they are all parts of a picture. The Survey USA poll made an elementary weighting error that has skewed their numbers some.

However, even re-weighted, the basic story of the poll holds: AV is in first. Hahn is a little ahead of Hertzberg. The gap between AV and Hahn is much greater than the gap between Hahn and Hertzberg. The battle is for 2nd.

What happens now? Well one thing we know for sure is that Hahn has a whole lot more money to spend on TV over the final 2 weeks than Bob.

Not saying Bob has made a mistake -- he was largely unknown and had to go out there and gamble a bit. But he's been off of broadcast for 5 days. So he has lost some of his momentum.

February 23, 2005 10:43 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"the Survey USA poll made an elementary weighting error..." For a firm that has 55 tv networks as clients, an "elementary...error" is serious stuff and takes away it's entire credibility. I agree with Harriman (Mr. or Mrs?) that it confirms what we all know already: In the primary we will see Villaraigosa in first place followed by Hahn followed by Hertzberg followed Parks followed by Alarcon.

February 23, 2005 11:10 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Who cares about these polls? I had a great night listening to KFI slam Antonio Mexican Socialist to shreads. They told all on air listeners especially if they're Latino not to vote for Antonio. They brought up Prop 227 and how successful its been and Tony being anti-Prop227 and not wanting immigrant kids to do better in school.

February 23, 2005 11:36 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hey, Mayor Sam, I may have missed it, but did anyone comment on the lack of effectivenss and the again 'late to the table' Mayor as it related to the sale of El Toro.

What was all that noise about getting the sale stopped, etc, just a couple of weeks ago........just campaign rhetoric ?

February 23, 2005 2:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement