California Recall Polling Update

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 1 - Hal Pawluk

  Oct 07, 2003 at 9:09 am

  I'm not sure why a Floridian would be trying to Muddy the waters in our recall, but for balance, the same story also said:
  
  (Quote:) On Thursday, the Times reported that six women claimed Schwarzenegger groped or sexually harassed them between 1975 and 2000. After that story, five other women made similar allegations; two said the actor harassed them on the set of the 1988 film "Twins." Four more women made their claims Sunday, bringing the total to 15.
  
  While Schwarzenegger didn't dispute all of the women's accounts, he said none of the women told him at the time that, "You went over the line now." (End quote)
  
  And on NBC when asked by Tom Brokaw if he denied "all those allegations", he said "No, not all" (I have it on tape). Strangely, the online NBC transcript erroneously has him saying: "Not at all." I wonder how that happened?

• 2 - Phillip Winn

  Oct 07, 2003 at 9:30 am

  Hal, John quoted from the article, which included polling information at the bottom as part of an inverted-pyramid style writing. The final three paragraphs of the piece read:
  
  

  Though the Knight Ridder poll found a majority of voters support recalling Davis, it suggested a shift. The poll was conducted Wednesday through Saturday, with the percentage of people saying they would definitely vote to oust Davis declining among those surveyed Friday and Saturday.
  
  If Davis is removed, the poll showed Schwarzenegger leading among potential replacements with 36 percent support, to 29 percent for Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. The poll of 1,000 registered voters, conducted by Elway/ McGuire Research and published in the San Jose Mercury News and Contra Costa Times, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.
  
  The Knight Ridder poll indicates the margin between Schwarzenegger and Bustamante has also tightened. A poll conducted by the Field Research Corp. between Sept. 25 and Oct. 1 gave Schwarzenegger a 10-point lead over Bustamante.

  
  
  That's all. If the San Francisco Examiner didn't publish these numbers except at the bottom of an article that could be described as a love letter to Gray Davis, it isn't John who is "Muddying" the waters.
  
  Do you have a specific statement to make regarding the NBC transcript (which also appeared that way in the Times), or are you just trying to insinuate and suggest something without being accountable for your statements?
  
  Honestly, I think that the transcript problem is the accent, though it seemed relatively clear to me. In any case, I think that the modified transcript (1) will be seen by far fewer people than saw the show and (2) hurts Arnold, since it makes him seem like a liar.
  
  We do develop an inflated opinion of ourselves and our little blogging venture, but ratings don't lie, and the TV audience heard what they heard.

• 3 - John Mudd

  Oct 07, 2003 at 9:38 am

  I wasn't muddying anything. What you missed was that I was writing about the most recent poll numbers, not the sexual harassment or assault allegations against Arnold, although I did address that in another post.
  
  If you had thoroughly read the post, or its title - California Recall Polling Update - you would have noticed that simple fact.
  
  You may have noticed that AP, which is in New York, covered this story, as well.
  
  Cheers.

• 4 - Hal Pawluk

  Oct 07, 2003 at 2:16 pm

  "Do you have a specific statement to make regarding the NBC transcript (which also appeared that way in the Times), or are you just trying to insinuate and suggest something without being accountable for your statements?" (2
  
  The comment about the transcript was simply a comment on how history gets rewritten.
  
  Even the L.A. Times, an anti-Schwarz, quoted the transcript version in a story. Then other media will quote the Times and there goes another "fact".
  
  But what is it you think I could insinuate? If it's something I believe, I'll be more than glad to say it straight out with full accountability, and no "he intended to be an imminent threat" type of spinning at all.
  

• 5 - John Mudd

  Oct 07, 2003 at 5:38 pm

  Then please make your statement rather than attempt to muddy the name of the messenger (which, given the name of the messanger, you can't make it too much muddier as it stands, anyway) with an ad-hominem attack. Thank you.
  
  Cheers.

• 6 - Hal Pawluk

  Oct 07, 2003 at 6:08 pm

  "Then please make your statement ..." (5)
  
  I did, John - read the posts again.
  
  Apparently you want to put words in my mouth.
  
  What is it that you want me to say?
  

• 7 - John Mudd

  Oct 07, 2003 at 6:13 pm

  Not really, I just don't appreciate being attacked.
  
  Cheers.

• 8 - Hal awluk

  Oct 07, 2003 at 6:16 pm

  "Not really, I just don't appreciate being attacked." (7)
  
  ?