A Bleak Reality? Crimes & Incidents, posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Dec 1, 2011 at 8:33 am
A bleak reality has emerged from various focus polling in our region concerning the selection of candidates for 2012 elections in Contra Costa County. Among polling groups throughout Contra Costa County there is a general belief that “they are all crooks” when referring to our elected officials and the candidates put forward by our county’s political consortium. As voters, we need to elect those individuals we believe will serve our will and interests as communities and neighborhoods and we cannot excuse ourselves from such voting because of a wide-spread belief that “they are all crooks.”
As you prepare for coverage of campaigns’ start-up in 2012 it should be an advantage to know how your readers feel about the ethics and honesty of their elected officials and proposed candidates for political office. We saw a recent shift in voter support in San Ramon explained by polling as a need to change the relationships and attitudes of that government. Will your readers as voters follow-through on that result and change state, county and city officials in the June 2012 election? Or will we see another minority of voters electing such officials because a majority believes “They are all crooks?”
**CDSI Research courtesy to allied news services**
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Dec 1, 2011 at 4:14 pm
As a courtesy to your readers, the focus interviews were conducted in districts 2, 3, and 4 with existing on-line focus groups totalling >2000 highly qualified participants representing a political and economic cross-section of small to large communities in each district. The follow-up polling was done by on-line survey with commentary capabilities among groups >4000 in each district. District 4 was used as a qualifier group based on no supervisorial election in 2012. The questions were based on comments from the focus group interviews and were prepared by news service pollster to be non-leading in content with the option of "none apply" and commentary for each question. The qualified population in both interviews and polling was qualified to + or - 3% error based on the qualified sampling.
The results of polling are a copyright portion of the feature distributed to subscribers in greater bay area corridors and to news media for their own story development. As a result, neighborhoods forums in west, central, south and east counties are conducting the same polling of the participants to better understand the separation of governments and communities in current campaigns, communication and interaction.
Expect your local news services to provide more details of such polling this December.
**as a CDSI Courtesy on behalf on allied news servises**
For more information, please contact CDSI Member Information, email@example.com
Posted by Steve B. , a resident of another community, on Dec 1, 2011 at 7:00 pm
What was the rate of refusal? Was there probability sampling? What firm conducted the poll? How did you break down the political and economic data? Was this a live poll or conducted via e-mail? How long was the poll open? How did you break down the totals via geography and how many were polled in each district? Was there ip blocking involved? Did you poll multiple members of households? Age demographics?
I love that your poll is super secret, yet I'm supposed to see a value in it.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Dec 2, 2011 at 7:18 am
The question of this exchange is for you to "know how your readers feel about the ethics and honesty of their elected officials and proposed candidates for political office.
Distribution of source information by news service researchers is their copyright and for the benefit of paid subscribers including local news media. Partial disclosure of that research was a courtesy to you and is enough to illustrate rational sampling. If further information is desired media researchers can be contacted at CDSI Member Information, firstname.lastname@example.org, and further information will be provided privately with proper confidentiality and non-disclosure specifications for protection of copyrights.
Current district 2 and 3 campaigns have challenged information and attacked the providers of such information because they do not wish to address important considerations by voters. After the volume of agressive campaign attacks in exchanges on your forum over the past two months your readers know such campaigns' disregard for any consideration of candidates by voters.
Just imagine if such campaigns disclosed their own polling that shows that they must have their candidates unopposed and voters apathetic to achieve victory in June 2012. The quiet reality becomes Mary and Tomi have very low voter approval ratings and most potential candidates would easily achieve majority in the June 2012 election.
Again, you are the important individual addressed in this exchange because you need to answer the question of candidate ethics and honesty for your readers as a home page feature.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Dec 3, 2011 at 3:43 pm
You are so transparent. Do you think you have anyone fooled? Please don't answer with your contrived "data". It is a simple question.
Steve, Don't bother asking questions that Hal would never answer. It simply wouldn't be in his favor to do so. Besides we all know how polls are conducted and Hal's is not one worth much consideration as it has no value.
Sorry Hal but you suggestion of your own poll having any validity is laughable at best.