I defer to John on the quality of the EMC polling. There are other things to consider. The Chula Vista and San Diego County Taxpayers Association "blew the whistle" on this attempt to mislead the voters. Ballot arguments, rebuttal arguments, and a clever mailer told voters the truth about Chula Vista Prop A: that it was a general fund tax increase, pure and simple. This truth starkly contrasted to the pretense it was a tax increase directed solely to public safety services. Voters showed their resentment with their votes. Also, there was a miserably low turnout statewide, which likely yielded a different turnout than had been polled by the city. Finally, as was shown in statewide results for ballot propositions, voters are hostile and suspicious. Elected officials everywhere should turn up their hearing aids. Soon. I believe this argues for more -- and better -- opinion research, not less.

Posted by Bob Nelson | reply to this comment
June 3, 2009 6:56 am

Did Mr. Nienstedt consider the state of California's decision, soon after that poll was conducted, to raise the state sales tax by 1% -- meaning the Chula Vista increase would have boosted the total sales tax to 9.75%? Seems like that could have had a significant impact on voters' attitudes.

Posted by Bystander | reply to this comment
June 3, 2009 8:37 am

Exactly. Chula Vista was beaten to the punch when the State raised the sales tax first. After that, even more sales tax was more than even 61% of Chula Vistans could handle. No brainer, Scott.

Posted by Robert E. Lee | reply to this comment
June 3, 2009 10:41 am

Lets not forget the folks at Tri-City off the hook . In a move that almost BOGGLES THE MIND, the third time they went to the voters to try to get their sesmic retrofit bond passed they chose a mail ballot a few months (I believe 3) before a PRESIDENTIAL election. Political Science 101 - higher turnouts=great chance to pass tax increase/bond measures. Convincing the board to do a mail ballot in August 2008 when they could have rode the wave of a Presidential general election is almost criminal. There should be an ordinance against political malpractice.

Posted by Erik Bruvold | reply to this comment
June 3, 2009 8:56 am

Not knowing when the EMC poll was done, I would suggest that the voters' personal financial situations only got worse between the polling and election day. In addition to increased skepticism about the economy during the election process and better messaging from Prop A opponents; voters were inunadated on a daily basis with media stories about when the economy will hit bottom and how long it may take to pull out of it. With a volatile economy and a tax issue ballot measure, no one would honestly expect voters to remain static on the issue. This is a perfect situation for doing tracking polls; which in this case, would have projected a more realistic result.

Posted by Jim Bartell | reply to this comment
June 4, 2009 7:40 am

It will be interesting to see the comparison between Chula Vista's election results and the results for Prop 1A in Chula Vista voters (city by city results should be in the Secretary of State's final report on the election, due out June 25th, unless the County Registrar chooses to release the information earlier).

Posted by Doug | reply to this comment
June 4, 2009 3:36 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.