Comments so far on this story:

1. John Nienstedt wrote on May 6, 2008 6:19 PM:
"SurveyUSA uses robo-calls to do their "polling." Results from these sorts of polls are usually suspect in down-ballot races. Though SurveyUSA tries hard, their methodology leads like the undecideds always being way too low. That's because hard core voters tend to participate in these automated polls, while those who aren't so plugged in just hang up. These results are also weighted towards Democrats. Obviously with fewer Republicans in SurveyUSA's mix, the Goldsmith/Maienschei percentages will be suppressed. But the huge, glaring problem is that SurveyUSA evidently did not give respondents the candidates' employment titles. Goldsmith's percentage is therefore further suppressed without "San Diego Superior Court Judge" after his name. Further, Peters and Maienschein are going to do better without their titles to remind respondents that they are City Councilmen. So these results do not reflect today's reality."

2. Sparky wrote on May 6, 2008 6:46 PM:
"Mike Aguirre has a solid base of 29%. He is like Donna Frye in that she has a base of 35+% and her wiggle room, like Mike's is plus or minus 3-5%. Not enough to win. Your thoughts of trying to picture the person who would switch? Be careful there... if it is between Peters or Maienschein and Aguirre it could get ugly... Scott and Brian have a huge hurdle to climb with voters... This is going to be an interesting race."

3. John Nienstedt, Competitive Ed wrote on May 6, 2008 6:51 PM:
"Regarding the SurveyUSA "Poll" . . . SurveyUSA uses robo-calls to do their polling. Results from these sorts of polls are usually suspect in down-ballot races. The methodology leads to real problems, mainly that the undecideds are always way too low. Really excited voters tend to participate, while those who aren't so plugged-in hang up. These results are also weighted towards Democrats. There's nothing to suggest that Democrats will have an 8% advantage over Republicans. With fewer Republicans in this mix, the Goldsmith/Maienschei percentage is suppressed. But the glaring problem is that SurveyUSA did not give respondents the candidates' employment titles. Goldsmith's percentage was further suppressed without "San Diego Superior Court Judge" after his name. Further, Peters and Maienschein did better without their titles to remind respondents that they are on a City Council of which 52% of likely June voters disapprove. So, these numbers do not reflect today's reality."

4. John Nienstedt wrote on May 6, 2008 6:51 PM:
"Scott, regarding your insight that you can't see Goldsmith, Peters or Maienschein voters moving to Aguirre in November, keep in mind that there will be twice as many voters casting ballots on 11/4 as there will be on 6/3. That gives Mike a window of opportunity which I'm sure he will try to exploit. He won't need voters to switch. His fate, and the fate of San Diego, will be in the hands of the less interested portion of the electorate."

5. Ann wrote on May 6, 2008 9:49 PM:
"Doesn't 29% seem pitiful for an incumbent? Even Sanders got 40% and according to all the blogs on this website, Aguirre seems to garner more favor than Sanders. But the people may feel differently than the bloggers."

6. jorgeelgato wrote on May 7, 2008 6:58 AM:
"interesting stuff; have watched Nienstadt over the years and he does a pretty good job on local races . . . so John, what do you think of Sanders @ 40? is that real and does that mean Steve Francis -- with a little help from Floyd Morrow -- goes on to November?"

7. Larry wrote on May 7, 2008 7:22 AM:
"Use a little common sense for once, Ann. There are (essentially) 2 people in the mayor's race. There are 4 in the CA. Anybody with a brain can see the numbers would be split differently between the two races on that basis alone."

8. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 7, 2008 8:06 AM:
"5. Ann wrote on May 6, 2008 9:49 PM: "Doesn't 29% seem pitiful for an incumbent? Even Sanders got 40%... ...ANN, Ann, Ann, still trying to spin the anti Aguirre hate so you and your pension piglets can sontinue to feed off the public. Now Ann, listen up, Mike's in a race with 4 other attorney's, making it a 5 way race. Saners is in a race with only ONE other person making it a two way race. Sanders is only 10% ahead of Francis (40>36 points). Mike, in a five way race has almost TWICE the points (29) of his nearest challenger- Peters (17). Mike has literally DOUBLE the votes that of Maienschein (15) and Goldsmith (15). So Mike leades every contender by a 2 to 1 margin. In most circles that would be considered a LANDSLIDE (I understand the Pension Board lacks credibility though)."

9. Scott M wrote on May 7, 2008 9:05 AM:
"John Nienstedt, great professional insight. Lewis/Voice doesn't want to run "partisan" polls but he publishes faulty polls. This might seem like a lot of hard work Scott, but I suggest you get a copy of every poll that is offered to you, not just the top lines but the full questionnaire and crosstabs. Then interview some experts like Nienstedt and determine for yourself if the poll is valid. I think in journalism school they call this hard work, or good reporting. Something like that. Anne - Blogers do not represent the views of voters. Blogers are shilling for a candidate or cause."

10. Jack Griffiths wrote on May 7, 2008 11:08 AM:
"Today's front page: Electricians back Maienschein....is Very mis-leading: NECA is a CONTRACTOR'S association not a trade union as in IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. There's a very BIG difference and VOSD should know that. I believe a correction is in order."

11. Watcher wrote on May 7, 2008 11:23 AM:
"The republicans and the Peters democrats are tearing themselves apart in their efforts to knock off Aguirre. You read it here first, Mike Aguirre will still be the San Diego City Attorney next year."

12. Tom S. wrote on May 7, 2008 12:05 PM:
"SUSA has had some of the best polling in the Pres race, and I remember them being VERY accurate in the Mayor races of 2004 and 2005 here. I trust their methods and . Competitive Edge reports (sub-professional as they are) almost always skew towards a Republican. (go ahead, John, rip me a new one - I call it like I see it). Bottom line though, any pollster (John?) would agree is if an incumbent is below 50% - he's in trouble. Even if it were skewed, it's not skewed that much. Sanders is in deep trouble. Personally, I hope they both get 40-something so Sanders is forced to go to November runoff, going apesh** some days losing his mind in the process.. serves him right."

13. Tom S. wrote on May 7, 2008 12:18 PM:
"John: I just looked up San Diego City voters on registrar. current % = 40 Dem, 31 Rep, 24 Ind. the SUSA poll composition of likely voters has 43 Dem, 35 Rep, 17 Ind. (as you know, Indys are less likely to turnout.) That seems very fair and, I'd say, even skewed towards Republicans by 1-2%. Your claim that the results are weighted towards Democrats is unfounded. Any skewing is not drastic - either way - and that's why we have a margin of error of 4.4%. Good job, SUSA."

14. John Nienstedt wrote on May 7, 2008 12:22 PM:
"Tom S: In 11/00, SurveyUSA had Roberts beating Murphy handily. Competitive Edge had Murphy up by 4%. In 11/04 SurveyUSA had Murphy in 1st and either Frye or Roberts in 2nd. Competitive Edge had Frye in 1st, Murphy in 2nd and Roberts in 3rd. Ten days before the July '05 special, SurveyUSA had Francis leading Sanders by 10%. Guess it depends on your definition of "VERY accurate." . . . But the thing that really irritates me is that, despite SurveyUSA's claim that they keep ALL their polling results up on their website, you won't find the above results on their site. . . . As for any skew in CERC's polling, a dispassionate analysis would show our results generally mirror reality rather than skew left or right (see above reference to '04)."

15. John Nienstedt wrote on May 7, 2008 12:59 PM:
"Jorgeelegato: Morrow is the wild card. There are tons of Democrats scratching their heads wondering what to do right now. Stay home? Vote for the endorsed Democrat? Vote for Sanders? Vote for Francis? That's where most of the undecideds are coming from."

16. John Nienstedt wrote on May 7, 2008 12:59 PM:
"Back to Tom S: Just because the Registrar has Democrats out-numbering Republicans by 8% does not mean that's the way it will be in June! Aside from the historical fact that Democrats in San Diego are less likely to turnout in low turnout scenarios, you've got two competitive Republican candidates who are going to drive turnout (yes, I know Steve Francis is not now technically a Republican, but he is in the eyes of the electorate). At the same time, Floyd Morrow has done nothing to drive Democrats to the polls. Not that the City Attorney's race is going to drive turnout, but even there, many Democrats are conflicted and may decide not to vote. When the dust settles in June, the partisan turnout mix will be about even."

17. Jake wrote on May 7, 2008 3:14 PM:
"Here is a link to the SurveyUSA web site with the July 2005 mayoral poll that John N. (message 14) asserted was nowhere to be seen: link It had Francis ahead by 8 points, not 10. In their final pre-election poll, which John forgot to mention, SurveyUSA had Frye at 45%, Sanders at 24% and Francis at 23%. The election results were Frye 43%, Sanders 27%, Francis 23.5%. (Competitive Edge had Frye at 36.8%, Sanders 27%, Francis 22.5%)"

18. Fed Up wrote on May 7, 2008 3:43 PM:
"My Top Ten: First, I'm fed up with the 25-year status minimus of San Diego's municipal and county government. Next, I'm fed up with Scott Peters' flacking for Clowncil President Scott "Waterman" Peters. Third, I wish Hillary would call it a day and go back to counting her money. Fourth, polling is almost always indecipherable hogwash, as one can plainly see from these ridiculous posts. Fifth, I'm sick of public schools' chronic underfunding and need for crisis management. Six through ten, repeat the preceding."

19. Scott M wrote on May 7, 2008 4:17 PM:
"Wow, Tom S. slowly bending over and picking up pants after being schooled by Nienstedt. It's fun being a blogger and not being accountable or knowing your facts, but it sure sucks when a professional comes along and embarrasses you. Is it any wonder that all the people that blog on the Voice are Frye-Aguirre supporters. That God for you folks you dont need to fill in the bubble this election, it might be too much to handle."

20. Algernon Sidney wrote on May 7, 2008 5:21 PM:
"This poll doesn't seem very sound, at least not as a predicter for the June election. First, roughly 15% of those polled aren't even registered voters - how tuned in are they really to the candidates and the issues? Probably not very. And anyway, they can't vote. Second, of the registered voters polled, only 500 plus are even likely to vote in June, and it will probably be way less that. Third, it was a robopoll that people can blow through pretty quickly without much deliberation or thought. Finally, if you look at the demographic break down, and given it will be a low turnout, Francis isn't looking too good. Expect more of those lame commercial. Finally, for real now, Nienstedt is a very reliable reporter on this issue, in my opinion, as opposed, say, to BBH."

21. jorgeelgato wrote on May 7, 2008 6:47 PM:
"hmm Algernon, so you don't think Jerry is that far under 50? I gather from what John N said he doesn't seem to disagree with the conclusion the mayor may be headed to a runoff; in November I think his honor is going to be an even tougher environment."

22. Tom S. wrote on May 7, 2008 7:34 PM:
"Wow Scott M, vivid image in your mind! Whatever floats your boat, bub. No, not feeling schooled here. My thoughts on these comments are full of facts - started with #13 above. (#12 was somewhat subjective, based on general observations of CR in the past - will address the rebuttal in a bit - haw haw Scott M, he said "butt") John countered 13 with 16 and stated there is a historical fact that Democrats turn out less in low turnouts, and concludes that the end result will be a wash in Dem/Rep voter mix. Well I looked it up, and its true that Dems turnout slightly less, but not enough to yield the %makeup even. Primary 2006 (last low-turnout, comparable): Dems TO 37% (of all Dem voters). Rep TO 41%. Indys TO 21%."

23. Tom S. wrote on May 7, 2008 7:44 PM:
"(cont'd): however, because there are more Dems, the actual makeup of the electorate in June 2006 was 44% D, 38% R, 17% I. In Primary 2004, it wsa 43% D, 39% R, 18% I. So John's claim that there is a historical trend of lower Dem turnout is true, but his conclusion that the trend will hold is speculative, and his conclusion that the electorate will be evenly split is not supported by historical trends. In 2004, the difference a mere 4%. In 2006, 6%. With Dem registration voter gains this lately, is it unreasonable to see this trend - that Dems may outnumber Reps by 8% in this race? Certainly not even as John claims! (In 2004, btw, there were 3 Republicans and Jim Bell driving the mayor race). I stand uncorrected, pants firmly at my waist to Scott M's chagrin."

24. Tom S. wrote on May 7, 2008 7:51 PM:
"More knowledge and facts to correct. As Scott M says, there are bloggers on here that don't have any. I leaned Sanders in 05 on the idea he had a good plan but BOY was I wrong (Scott M giggles - he said "boy"!) Don't know who I'll vote for in this one, but it won't be Panders (no candidate or cause here, Scott M). Back to the professional's opinion. Jack debunked some of John in 17 and caught him in a lie about SUSA posting, but to add: John asserts in 2004 he got the order right and SUSA didn't. Well he did (congrats, trifecta!) but he polled 30% Frye, 27% Murphy and 27% Roberts. 15% undecided, 4% margin error. Hardly decisive conclusion."

25. Tom S. wrote on May 7, 2008 8:24 PM:
"I could've flipped coins too on those odds. Bottom line: Competitive Edge is has a history of more flaws than other polling firms; and now they're just plain making stuff up to defend themselves (like the Republicans they work for). They use robocalls and automated responses just as much as any other firm."

26. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 7, 2008 9:13 PM:
"20. Algernon Sidney wrote on May 7, 2008 5:21 PM: Finally, for real now, Nienstedt is a very reliable reporter on this issue, in my opinion, as opposed, say, to BBH....Hey Algernon, your police union is calling, they want their trained circu chimp back in the cage."

27. Ann wrote on May 7, 2008 9:30 PM:
"I stand corrected. But I dont think 29% is a landslide when 52% are voting for someone other than Aguirre."

28. John Nienstedt wrote on May 8, 2008 12:08 AM:
"Tom S: Competitive Edge has never conducted polls using robocalls and/or automated responses. Talk about "making stuff up!""

29. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 8, 2008 6:37 AM:
"Ann. Sorry about my poor spelling. Hopefully, there will be a runoff between Goldsmith and Peters. Sure, I would like to see my boss, 'the emperor', be in there as well, but that seems unlikely. I'm just hopeful that I will be able to keep my job at the City Attorney's office. Notice my spelling and grammar is better. I got a chance to get my meds, ridillin and prozac on board."

30. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 8, 2008 9:53 AM:
"29. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 8, 2008 6:37 AM: "Ann. Sorry about my poor spelling.......... GREAT, my imposter is back. Thanks for the support. Imitation is a sign of success. BTW-there is no spell check on this system, sorry about the typos-but I do serious legal work-I am not a secretary."

31. Algernon Sidney wrote on May 8, 2008 6:44 PM:
"BBH, what is a circu monkey? And why would you call me that? And what about me causes you to believe I am connected to a police union? And are you really such a great attorney that you are incapable of reading what you type? Of course, a typo here and there is fine and worth the speed in most cases. Not yours, but in most cases."

32. Billy Bob Henry wrote on May 9, 2008 11:38 AM:
"31. Algernon Sidney wrote on May 8, 2008 6:44 PM: "BBH, what is a circu monkey... Not moneky, chimp! Circus chimp!"

33. Algernon Sidney wrote on May 9, 2008 4:50 PM:
"BBH, what on earth is a "moneky"?"

34. Rock On wrote on May 13, 2008 5:29 PM:
"Aguirre will get about all he's going to get in the primary, and that will be a problem for him, unless his opponent is even more distasteful than Aguirre. Peters has a ton of baggage, but so does Aguirre. But the voters' memories tend to be short, and what happens between the primary and the general elections may be more critical than either of their pasts. So far, Aguirre has more to lose in this period with the various allegations and investigations against him, plus the likelihood of the other CA candidates throwing their support behind ABA (or "anyone but aguirre"). If Aguirre chooses to have his ethics hearing in private, that'll be a problem for him, but if he has it in public, and there are real issues brought to light, that'll be a bigger problem. But Aguirre brought these on himself, and he'll have to dig himself out."