LA Times Poll
LA Times just released their poll online.
Antonio Villaraigosa - 53%
Jim Hahn - 35%
Undecided -12%
There are glimmers of hope for Hahn. Republicans -- roughly a quarter of the city's electorate -- strongly favor his re-election, as do conservatives. He is also receiving more credit for accomplishments now than in polls earlier in the campaign -- particularly for the drop in crime.
For now, however, large groups of voters whom campaign strategists have pegged as up for grabs are tilting heavily toward Villaraigosa. Among them are those who voted in the mayoral election last month for Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who has endorsed Villaraigosa, and former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg of Sherman Oaks.Parks voters favor Villaraigosa over Hahn, 50 percent to 34 percent. Hertzberg voters also prefer Villaraigosa over the mayor, 52 percent to 28 percent.An ominous trend for Hahn is his steep decline in support among voting blocs that drove his 7-point victory over Villaraigosa in their runoff contest four years ago.
Very interesting data to shift through - have fun bloggers.
Antonio Villaraigosa - 53%
Jim Hahn - 35%
Undecided -12%
There are glimmers of hope for Hahn. Republicans -- roughly a quarter of the city's electorate -- strongly favor his re-election, as do conservatives. He is also receiving more credit for accomplishments now than in polls earlier in the campaign -- particularly for the drop in crime.
For now, however, large groups of voters whom campaign strategists have pegged as up for grabs are tilting heavily toward Villaraigosa. Among them are those who voted in the mayoral election last month for Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who has endorsed Villaraigosa, and former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg of Sherman Oaks.Parks voters favor Villaraigosa over Hahn, 50 percent to 34 percent. Hertzberg voters also prefer Villaraigosa over the mayor, 52 percent to 28 percent.An ominous trend for Hahn is his steep decline in support among voting blocs that drove his 7-point victory over Villaraigosa in their runoff contest four years ago.
Very interesting data to shift through - have fun bloggers.
Posted by Anonymous @ 4/12/2005 08:16:00 PM
18 Comments:
no you don't understand if you take the margin of error and then double it again for good measure and then subtract 12 for the days of the month it's really an 18 point Hahn lead
MEAT says this is old news. Not today. I'm referring to the Congressional Investigative report on the Vignali letter Antonio wrote. If Antonio called the state prosecutor to get this drug dealer off I guarantee those numbers will go down fast as they did in 2001. That is a federal offense and obstruction of justice. If Antonio was so confident why did he have to go back EAST for the next 3 days to raise money?
Linda Breakstone on Channel 2 KCBS did the story on the Congressional report.
This about sums it up for Hahn:
While K-CAL was doing their 9:30 poltical wrap up with Kerman Maddox and Alan Hoffenblum, Channel 9 was running footage of the candidates,
BUT they were using McClintock footage when focusing on Hahn. Even the political news editors can't point out this dweeb.
Hey, isn't it about time for the anti-Antonio people to start posting ad nauseum (of course without any political commentary).
Let me start it off . . .
Where are those 80 neighborhood watch groups? . . . CD14 went to hell over the past two years . . . ADV doesn't tell the truth . . . he lied about filling out his term . . . BORING . . . Well, at least there's Vignali . . . but that's 4 year's old.
OK, AV is up by 32 points in one poll.
AV is up by 18 points in another poll.
Time for the Hahninistas to start posting away about AV private life and the letter thing.
Man, I hope Hahn and his staffers get a real nice cell to share.
Wait, they don't make cells that big.
Maybe they will put Hahn at terminal island pen, that way he can stay in San Pedro.
I just have a few concerns regarding poll numbers that are being made to the public. How accurate are they? For example, my close friend is a volunteer for the Villaraigosa Campaign for months. He and I differ in politics, but we are still friends and exchange our views about what we are doing for the candidate that we support. He has told me numerous times that many of the people on the calling lists he contacts cannot vote. They might support Villaraigosa, but they cannot vote for many reasons, one which is a common comment to him is "I cannot vote, but if I could I would vote for him." This is not a racist comment on my behalf of mentioning this, I want to clarify that first. Because many ADV supporters will jump on this lame excuse right away. I am just wondering how accurate these polls are if the other end of the phone line you get someone who is underage, unable to vote, or just someone that wants to get you off the phone because you are calling during dinner time...
Dude, it's a poll of registered voters..
Wait a moment, this is exactly what I thought when he was explaining to me his situation. The problem with your comment that "poll of registered voters" is non verifiable. The call is made and then what. How are these polls monitered that you are reaching the registered voters on the other end, or how do you know that can vote if it is not the registered voter that answers...Just asking.
FROM MEAT:
Well if it's just a question, folks fill out voter registration cards, which are public information. Campaigns purchase those lists and call those voters, same as pollsters.
But let me get to the point of my poll.
I'd like every single staffer to Mayor Hahn to update your resume, clean out your desk and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Call those old friends, start socializing some more, call those LAX, Harbor and Port contractors who got rich off of Jim Hahn.
You'd think City Hall is West Hollyhood the day Antonio comes into City Hall -- so much pink everywhere. Pink slips there, pink slips here, pink slips everywhere.
I'll taunt today, pat ourselves on the back, and begin to kick some more ass tomorrow.
Oh yeah, Hahn's communication team, come up with a better answer regarding why LA couldn't even qualify for the Stem Cell proposal.
Word is Eli Broad is pissed that the Mayor would squeeze him for all this help in offering goodies to the Institute then to not even make the finals. Embarrassing!
blog away!
Eli pissed? Perish the thought.
Forget that he has been planning a Biomedical Park for USC Medical School on about 70 acres for about five years now and cares deeply about the issue.
Why whould he be mad at poor Jimmy?
Jimmy "Doesn't know anything about it, but, he is looking into it, and, if there were mistakes made, he will be the first to call for their dismissal".
After all, "You can't hold me responsible if I didn't know anything about it, can you?".
A post mortem is due to the People of Los Angeles. We have a right to know exactly what happened here and why the City was excluded. These documents are public ones and everyone has a right to view them.
It is time for our Mayor to stand up and face the consequences of his staff's failure and tell us exactly what happened. I don't want to hear from Kam Kuwata how it was the Council's fault or some other B.S. spin story.
As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say (Say, he used to work for you, didn't he Chief?):
"Just the facts, Ma'am, I just want the facts."
Jimmy; bricklaying is an honest profession. You might consider it, since practicing law is really hard work. Imagine going to work every day for a living and having to be there.
There are lots of things you can do to pass the time of day. You can save hours just eating lunch in San Pedro without having to drive up every day to the office to look at mail before you eat lunch and go home.
No more nasty campaigning every four years; those two months are Hell, aren't they? Actually have to talk to people. Ugh. What a crummy job.
Have a nice retirement; you've been practicing for it for twenty-four years on our nickel, so enjoy it now.
Your adoring public will miss you. Both of them.
MEAT says the Vignali letter is old news. Not so because we didnt' have the Congressional Investigative report stating that Antonio's letter was misleading, improper and he may have called the state prosecutor to get that drug dealer off which is a federal offense. I'm sure the conservatives and Republicans want to know. 5 weeks is a long time away. Its not even close to being over. Now the truth on Antonio's ZERO record as CM will be coming out. Even the bias LAT states that people are still concerned that Antonio will only help his own people. Trust me when people get in that little booth they will not want a Mexican mayor who supports gangs and illegal immigrants.
This has everything to do with an absentee CM who hasn't done ONE thing since taking office. The next couple of weeks his record will finally come out.
LAT..Boland criticized Villaraigosa for voting against bills to increase penalties for gang crimes, allow judges to require gang members convicted of crimes to register with local law enforcement, allow the seizure of assets from gang members convicted of crimes, and increase the penalty for those convicted of child abuse resulting in death.
Antonio’s 10 point plan when he took office to reduce crime. He hasn't completed not one of them.
1. Interagency cooperation.
2. Expand police presence in parks.
3. Work with schools.
4. Early intervention.
5. Target graffiti.
6. Hire more police officers.
7. Expand real community-based policing.
8. Protect witnesses.
9. Train officers to prevent conflict.
10. Tougher gun laws.
The "Congressional Report" is a full investigation of the facts behind Bill Clinton's @144 pardons.
Antonio is mentioned twice in minor places, with no guilt associated with his actions.
Pin your hopes on some other donkey's butt.
The thought that Antonio is mentioned at all in the report in a negative light is a disgrace in itself. If I was a politician, I would not want my name AT ALL in the report linked to any Vignali or such type of person. Why has the Villaraigosa camp not posted information for an East Los Angeles rally? There is a problem with this election, there are two liberals on board for the race of Mayor. As somone said earlier about picking from two poisons, it is shameful that we cannot produce better candidates then these two. One has a staff full of socialistic propaganda minded individuals, and the other is in political turmoil. I have to pick one of these two? I do not think people want CHAOS in Los Angeles/Valley by choosing Villaraigosa...I foresee racial tensions. The Villaraigosa team is ready to initiate their real agenda in office and that is having Los Angeles/Valley be the leading Communist Hub of the nation.
Before ADV lovers get their hopes over the top (again), isn't this a significant slip for him, since the "flawless" exit polling asked people how he would do in a 2-way, last month? Isn't he heading in the WRONG direction to win.
(Isn't that how he lost, last time?)
The more your see and get to know ADV, the less sense he makes as mayor.
TIMES poll was the one that said Hertzberg would be in the runoff, not Hahn, just 8 days before the primary vote.
Enough said...
SuveyUSA and Times have both, in all reports, under-rated Hahn's eventual numbers by as much as double digit percentages.
In the LA Times poll which showed Hertzberg leading Hahn in the runoff Hertzberg's lead was in the margin of error. If I remember correctly it was like 22% to 20 or something of that nature with a margin of error of two points. This poll has a margin of error of 4 points and the deficit is much greater than two points. At this point in time I think we can say the LAT poll is accurate if the election were held now. As we get closer to the election we'll get more accurate indications of who the next Mayor will be. But either way the poll isn't good news for Hahn. But let's see what happens.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home