About the Mirkarimi poll

|
(193)

It's no suprise that lawyers for suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi are calling a recent poll biased. The poll, paid for by a group of local women, many of whom have been in the forefront of the efforts to remove Mirkarimi from office, found that 61 percent of people wanted the sheriff ousted. More significant, it broke the results down for the supervisorial districts where there are contested elections; the goal, of course, was to put pressure on the supes to support the mayor's removal efforts.

But nobody has published the actual questions in the poll -- although I got a call from Greg Kamin, a San Francisco resident who was among those contacted by the robo-poll, and he said it was unusual, to say the least.

"In a normal push poll, they ask you your opinion first, then give you information to see if it changes your view," he told me. "In this one, there was just a barrage of negative information first, before they asked a single question."

One question went more or less like this: Which factors would most convince you the sheriff should be removed -- the fact that he pled guilty to false imprisonment, the fact that the Ethics Commission ruled against him, the fact that he was involved in domestic violence, or the fact that he's on probation?

"There was no way to answer the question that didn't say you wanted him removed," Kamin said.

Given the way the poll was structured, Kamin told me, "it's surprising Mirkarimi got as much support as he did."

Worth considering.

Also worth considering: For all the talk about domestic violence and zero tolerance and the need to remove the sheriff, there's been very little discussion about the impacts on the people in the county jail -- who are overwhelmingly African American and Latino. It makes a difference who the sheriff is. Someone who really believes in rehabilitation and wants to treat inmates in a decent, humane way can change lives -- and radically improve public safety in a state with a 70 percent recidivism rate.

Again: Just something that ought to be part of the discussion.

 

Comments

Asking which of these three factors would most cause you to reject Ross as mayor is not prejudicial. Because even if you want Ross as mayor there is still one of those three answer that is or would be the most troubling.

So maybe the most troublesome is that a man who admitted false imprisonment would be in charge of the prisons.

Or maybe you don't think someone convicted of any violent crime should be sheriff.

Or maybe it's the DV and anti-women angle.

The point is, even if you love Ross, ONE of those reasons would still weigh more than another one, even if you feel none of them rise to the necessary standard.

While your last paragraph is just playing a race card. Ironic giving then that was a white perp and a hispanic victim.

Given the poll mirrors the two pother polls, all showing a 65% to 76% majority for Ross going, I feel comfortable and confident about the poll.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 9:16 am

Ross is not white, Eliana is no victim.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 9:46 am

what Ross himself described as "an act of violence against my wife".

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 11:28 am

And no other group has experienced as much prejudice and discrimination in this country as America's Muslim population, particularly people from Iran. Get your facts straight.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

If you are Barack Obama, the candidate for president, you are black. If you are successful as a black president, you are half-white.

Ross Mirkarimi is white for the purpose of making his defenders racists, but Iranian for making him the target of opprobrium.

Real nice. Scumbags.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 12:28 pm

Handsome and swarthy, yes. But white? Well, "white" is a social construct. The important thing here is public perception. I don't think most people would look at Ross and think of him as white, except when he opens his mouth. He's both. But it's not worth arguing about.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 5:42 pm

Ross is not only incredibly "handsome and swarthy" but also powerfully masculine too. He radiates virility like a warm radiator on a cold New York City night. And Eliana is very elegant and attractive as well. They are a lovely family in so many ways.

Posted by JCCourt on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 5:59 pm

STFU imp!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 6:07 pm
Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:39 pm

Mr. Mirkarimi's skin color, ethnicity, national origin, and other category identifiers are completely irrelevant to this matter.

Also, his supposed masculinity and virility are also irrelevant, especially if you are not one of his sexual partners, which I assume you are not.

Ms. Lopez's supposed elegance and attractiveness are also completely irrelevant to the matter.

The discussion about Mr. Mirkarimi has become beyond stupid. The only relevant issues are his actions and how they do or do not affect his legitimacy to serve as Sheriff.

Posted by Chris on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 1:18 am

recent election we've seen that it matters, even if it shouldn't, as when the young, photogenic Obama beat the wrinkled old McCain. Or where the svelt, "oh so cute" Jane Kim trounced a somewhat dowdy Debra Walker for D6.

Looks matter and JCCourt called it first.

And in matter with MirkGate because it was a white "powerful" man abusing a hispanic immigrant.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 4:11 am

It's OK with me if you people are having a little fun today in this comment section. But it would be appreciated if you did not use my name. Thanks.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 3:52 pm

There has still never been a 100% black man as President, nor a man descended from slaves.

Some have argued that Obama's appeal to whites deroves partly from his white background, making him a "safe" choice.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:38 pm

Uh, no, black folks brought over in bondage and maintained as an underclass for 400 years suffered more than American Muslims will ever know. Queers have suffered much more brutality over the centuries that Muslims have. Women have likewise been legal chattel for most of this country's history.

Yeah, Muslims are a minority religion and they are often demonized as a class here but they are not an immutable group and as such are not subject to the kind of violence that. Muslims are adherents to the Islamic religion. That religion, like all others, stands and falls on its attributes.

Hopefully the entire Abrahamic coterie of religions fall of their own attributes, especially the ones that make their adherents wear special clothes.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 12:43 pm

His mother is white; his father Iranian-American. Nuff said.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 6:10 pm

How does that influence this fascinating debate over Ross's whiteness or lack thereof?

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 6:41 pm

Is this antisemitic and sexist?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/61330

Posted by marcos on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

How would Jewess be considered anti-semitic and sexist? I'm Jewish BTW.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 8:15 pm

Living in the oppression olympic village around these parts, anything you say can and will be turned into currency and spent against you in the martyr economy. Somewhere, someone is oppressed that you did not get that and had to be told, you hurt their feelings.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 9:15 pm

Especially if you suggest their cruising grounds near the windmills be put to more general public use.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

And she's Russian.

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 7:38 pm

Exactly. How that means he's not white, especially when Persians are generally considered white, too, escapes me.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 4:08 pm

Jewish identity is passed down through the maternal line. Mirkarimi's mother is Jewish, so he is as well.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 3:38 pm

Guest wrote: "Ross is semite, which is white"

You're a REAL ass, and probably a racist and anti-semite. Guess you never bothered to learn about Sephardic Jews. Also, most semites originated from the Middle East hardly the bastion of white skin. Also, what about those Morano Jews? Not really white. But, you probably think that Italians are white, too. Back in the day, they were considered people of color in the same way Latinos are today.

Just go crawl on your belly slowly so we can all see you back under that rock or bridge you regularly live under.

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

They're certainly not black, asian or hispanic.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:40 pm

Ross haters are trying to portray him as white because it makes him appear all the more reprehensible~ the idea of a white male "beating" a Latina. But the fact that y'all can't figure out the race of someone of mixed Iranian and Jewish descent shows how ridiculous the notion of race is to begin with. It only matters how Ross Mirkarimi defines himself.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 3:06 pm

It's just another ploy to sow dissent within the progressive community; imputing hypocrisy or some other negative trait where it does not exist.

Note that the Repuglican/Democratic Loser's Counsel-type trolls always are using one or another permutation of this same trick; that's what they come here to do.

Considering it further, I'd imagine they are *quite* high on themselves and fancy their (proven) ability to dissemble and (dubious) capacity to "fool" them who they bother.

Trolls, did you ever stay somewhere beyond the time you were welcome and actually feel any shame or regret after realizing that was the case?

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

Yes, the violence Ross affirmed was hollering at his wife and grabbing her arm for an instant, a "technical" battery, but like sputtering in someone's face 99.99% of the time a person is not arrested and brought to trial. Am I wrong? Then show me another case like this one that was prosecuted for the above "act of violence." I'm quite in finding another example anywhere -- San Francisco, California, the U.S.A.

Posted by Patty on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 10:35 am

This commenter's Freudian slip intrigues me, "Ross as mayor." We all know that false imprisonment was a bargained plea and nobody was actually imprisoned, so it's baloney to extrapolate about overseeing jails (not 'prisons'). Violent crime? The violence is what the City did to a family to get Ross. An arm grab is not "a pattern of violence" nor does it show intent to harm, both of which are core aspects of D.V. The two polls are so poorly conceived and unreliable that they are regarded as illiterate social engineering which plays perfectly into the hands of the uninformed who hammer away ignoring the enormous flaws of the Ross prosecution.

Posted by Patty on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 10:30 am

I thought any poll which supplied negative and inflammatory information -- or just plain old lies -- about the subject could be called a "push poll." Honestly -- there's a distinction to be made as to when the lies are told?

I realize I was wrong about the origin and timing of the "impliedly required" language but -- really? -- there's no appropriate term for a poll which seeks to skew its results or shift public opinion which does not ask questions before telling lies?

My closest connection to being a political "wonk" is having watched -- and adored! -- every episode of the hulu show "battleground" this year. I did run into Ross at the supermarket and had a chance to tell him how badly I felt for him and what he was being put through.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 9:47 am

I'm surprised they found it to be only 61%. To me, having a Sheriff who's on probation for false imprisonment defies common sense. I guess I'm no longer a Progressive.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 9:49 am

If he could have gotten a freakin' impartial judge or jury then he wouldn't have to take a plea to stop the bleeding. He should have stuck it out and taken it to the CA Supreme Court. They would have filed vexatious litigant charges against the Mayor for bringing such trash forward and wasting the taxpayers money even though it would have been cheaper than the $1million+ he spent on the Ethics fiasco. Our money.

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 7:35 pm

If he could have gotten a freakin' impartial judge or jury then he wouldn't have to take a plea to stop the bleeding. He should have stuck it out and taken it to the CA Supreme Court. They would have filed vexatious litigant charges against the Mayor for bringing such trash forward and wasting the taxpayers money even though it would have been cheaper than the $1million+ he spent on the Ethics fiasco. Our money.

Posted by MistOfTheCity on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 7:36 pm

They actually quoted the key question:

The poll of 500 registered voters in San Francisco showed that those favoring his removal outnumbered those opposed by a margin of nearly 2 to 1. When asked, “Do you think Sheriff Mirkarimi should be removed from office, or not?” 61 percent said yes, 31 percent said no, and 8 percent weren’t sure.

http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/08/22/poll-ross-mirkarimi-should...

Posted by D.native on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:09 am

I think their argument is that about 20% of the people changed their mind to be against Mirkarimi based on what a monotone computer voice said in about 15 seconds.

Applying logic is a waste of time.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:29 am

D Native,
That question was only asked at the very end, after the respondent was subjected to a bunch of anti-Ross talking points. Note, NO information was provided from the other side.

This wasn't a poll. It was propaganda.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 1:48 pm

"do you agree that a person who claims to speak for "the people," while only being able to be elected in the nether regions of San Francisco should get extra rights that you would never allow to be had by right wingers?"

Posted by matlock on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 6:10 pm

Another "key question" is how many poll recipients hung up on the computer when it started spouting a bunch of anti-Mirkarimi bullshit.

The most "key" of key questions is why is this "poll" -- just as the last supposed "poll" -- secret? Why isn't all the normal run-of-the-mill information such as how many Democrats, how many Republicans, and how old etc., answered the poll? Why? I am quite confindent that I can say why. The poll is political bullshit. The "truth" the poll creators are trying to tell is not the truth at all.

I'll bet that a significant majority of San Franciscans want the sheriff to be reinstated right now -- and, as a matter of fact, evidently many people who read the Chronicle think that way. They voted in the SFGate poll with the exact opposite result of the bogus polls you and your cohort love to cite -- even though it too had push poll qualities.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:56 am

How many similar polls do you need, Lilli?

Why don't you simply admit that most SF'ers want Ross gone but then assert that they are mistaken> Why the need to ne in the majority? That's hardly a feeling that someone like you is used to anyway?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 11:30 am

If the other 2 polls were as biased as this, u don't know jack about what the public thinks since this poll was nothing more than propaganda.

The fact that those behind this poll feel they must bias the results shows they don't feel the public is overwhelmingly against RM or else they wouldn't fear the results of a fair poll.

You wanna pro-Ross poll? Go poll those giving this poll - they obviously think the public is either evenly divided or pro-Ross since they'd leave out the bias if they thought differently.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 2:03 pm

pro-ross biased in it, which is what you would have liekd to have seen.

The poll questions strike most people as fair, just as most people want Ross gone, which is obvious if you just ask people around you.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:42 pm

If this poll makes you feel good, Guest, enjoy it. There's no honest way you can trust the results.

I read somewhere that recalls can't take place until someone has served in office for six months, meaning that since Mirkarimi was only in office for about a month before he was suspended that he can't be removed via recall until he serves another five months in office.

If this is true it would explain why no organized move to recall him has begun. If it's not true, then that's a pretty good measure of the anti-Mirkarimi sentiment among the voters.

Can anyone clarify?

Posted by Bob In Portland on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 9:43 am

want Ross gone, and there have been no polls showing the opposite. And if you lived here, you'd know that most people you talk to have the same view.

I don't know about the rules for Recalls but, in the unlikely event that the Supes ignore the wishes of the people and reinstate a violent criminal as sheriff, then no doubt a recall will be started for some date in 2013.

It is inconceivable that Ross could win any kind of election at this point, and it seems clear that he knows that.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 10:19 am

I believe the change occured with the 1996 charter reform which gave us the stinky "impliedly required" language. A November 2008 ballot proposition raised the minimum percentage of voters required to to initiate a recall elections for district-elected supervisors, bringing city practices in conformity with state practices wherein the percentage of signatures requried is higher for smaller election districts.

[SEC. 14.103. RECALL.
An elected official of the City and County, the City Administrator, the Controller, or any mem- ber of the Airports Commission, the Board of Education, the governing board of the Commu- nity College District, the Ethics Commission or the Public Utilities Commission may be recalled by the voters as provided by this Charter and by the laws of the State of California, except that no recall petitions shall be initiated with respect to any officer who has held office for less than six months.

A recall petition shall include the signatures of voters in a number equal to at least ten percent of registered voters of the City and County at time of the filing of the notice of intention to circulate the recall petitions. A recall petition for a member of the Board of Supervisors shall include signatures of voters from the district from which the Supervisor was elected in a number equal to at least ten percent of the registered voters of the district at the time of the filing of the notice of intention to circulate the recall petition. A recall petition shall state the grounds on which the recall is based.]

So it looks like any recall of Ross *can't* start until months after he is reinstated. A recall of Paul Renne on the ethics panel, though, can start immediately, since George Gascon appointed him in February.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

I may be wrong, but Mirkarimi has held the office, albeit on suspension without pay, since he was inaugurated. A recall effort should therefore be able to begin now.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 8:40 pm

such as the ruling to implement a stay-away order based on a momentary arm grabbing, the ruling allowing the video to be used in lieu of (the withheld) testimony from his wife, the denial of a change of venue which would properly insulate his criminal case from prejudicial billboards put up within a block from the courthouse, the ruling to forego ruling on precluding the mayor from using highly suspect language in the charter to remove the sherifff, etc., I will stipulate that a recall can probably go forward.

Just to be clear: after a series of attempted recalls, and threats of recalls, notably a series against then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, progressive changes were made to make recalls more difficult. The change which evidently dates from 1995's Prop E -- which I voted against, by the way -- was in furtherance of that cause. The *idea* was to *prevent* a duly elected official from being harassed before they had an opportunity to even serve in the OFFICE THAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO.

Fucking regressives have no self-awareness of the flaws in their own intellectual capacities.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 11:03 pm

Mr. Publicans:

Regarding your question:

"Why isn't all the normal run-of-the-mill information such as how many Democrats, how many Republicans, and how old etc., answered the poll? "

That would be Question 7. 65% Democrats, 14% Republican, 21% Independent/Other.

Question 9 covered age and Question 8 covered Race/Ethnicity.

Regarding your statement:

"I am quite confindent that I can say why. The poll is political bullshit."

All I can say is that it seems as if you have made quite a fool out of yourself.

Again.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 11:42 am

website. The location of a pdf file purporting to be that of the poll was published here *subsequent* to my post posing the question as to where that information was and why it was being withheld.

One thing that might not be apparent to those of childlike intellectual abilities (sorry kiddies, just a figure of speech) is that the outfit which performed this push poll does some funny stuff with the data which goes in to make the result work in the way that normal polls work. You can read about it on their website (though, again, not of this particular poll.)

So is the answer in? No.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 12:25 pm

There is no "key question" if the poll takers give out biased info or make remarks that slant the direction of the poll results

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 11:47 am

then that doesn't say much for the Chron. There's a name for that kind of "journalism" - propaganda.

There's no "key question" if those giving the poll tilt the results of the poll in one direction. Is that fact not relevant to you? Sounds like you're engaged in the same type of propaganda the Chron is involved in (assuming biased remarks were made prior to the poll and the Chron knew about them and didn't report them) since you have no problem ignoring the biased remarks or "questions."

If the poll takers did indeed lead the poll respondents in one direction prior to the poll, that's a meaningless poll and any "news" organization that reports such a poll as anything other than propaganda (or the equivalent of) assuming they knew biased info was given out prior to the poll, is engaging in the same type of propaganda.

And since you are going along with this (ignoring the leading questions prior to the poll as if that wasn't important which is absurd), then you too are engaging in the same type of propaganda.

I guess a straight honest poll wasn't going to give the results the poll takers wanted so they had to tilt the poll in the direction they wanted with the biased questions prior to the poll. If they fear the results of an honest poll, then it means they think the public is either almost evenly split or leaning in Ross's favor.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 12:00 pm