Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Capitol Fax on the Laura Washington Column

Some pertinent comments:
But here’s a secret to reading any poll. Politicians and operatives pay the most attention to voter intensity. Will a certain issue mean anything come voting time? Responses above 70 percent are given a lot of attention by the players. If not, then they’re not much to worry about.

Here’s the intensity answer to the Wal-Mart question…
Question: “If your alderman voted against building a new Wal-Mart store in Chicago, would you vote to re-elect them to office if an election were held today?”

Thirty-nine percent said, “Re-election.” Thirty-eight percent said, “Not re-elected.”
So, voters care about the issue, but not enough to make any sort of difference at the ballot box. At least, not yet. We’d need more responses to other questions to see if the issue might eventually become important enough to make a difference. I don’t have the full poll, so I don’t know if those questions even exist.
I was given the ward-by-ward results (on MS Excel) via email of a survey push poll on July 28th which asks one simple question...
"This is a one-question public opinion poll concerning your view on whether Mayor Daley and the City Council should allow a Walmart to be built at 83rd & Stewart. Advocates of the plan cite the 400+ jobs that will be created and the wider availability of fresh groceries and other goods. Opponents to building the Walmart say the jobs are not good enough.
We'd like to know how you feel.

If you think the Walmart SHOULD be built, press ONE on your phone.

If you think the Walmart SHOULD NOT be built, press TWO on your phone.

If you're unsure, press THREE.”
These are the 6th Ward's results: 85.65% for Yes, 7.51% for No, & 7.84% Unsure.

What do you think out there about this Wal-Mart?

2 comments:

  1. This was a push poll Levois. The question was completely slanted. The results are worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe you could dismiss it if the results weren't so lopsided, or if the question was about a lesser known issue, but really, 85% to 7% requires more than some whining about the poll to discredit it. When will the Walmart haters concede that the public wants and needs the store, and that only special interests and "we know what's better for you" social engineers continue to game the system to frustrate the will of the people? If the store doesn't pay and support its employees, it will have community and labor problems that will hurt its business and cause it to fail -- that's how the market works. There are far more non-union employees at all the Walgreens, MacDonald's and other fast food restaurants in the city -- why no complaints about their wages and work conditions? If labor wants to organize the Walmart store, go ahead and get it done. There's an established process for that and if they think Walmart doesn't play fair, address it with the NLRB. Quit asking the politicians to prop up labor's inability to organize workers -- it's coming at the expense of the community and the City's ailing budget. The haters just keep saying "no" and working the politicians, without offering any solutions of their own (Chatham has sat vacant for 4 years with no other retailer interest in that location). Burke, Mell and Lyle supported Walmart on the west side and have courted big-box stores in their own wards, so we're not talking principle here. It's cowardice and selfishness, not to mention an illegal use of zoning power to target a single retailer for exclusion based on things utterly unrelated to zoning standards. Imagine if Brookins' somehow frustrated a commercial project Burke or Mell wanted for their wards. Trob74

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE READ FIRST!!!! Comment Moderating and Anonymous Comment Policy

While anonymous comments are not prohibited we do encourage you to help readers identify you so that other commenters may respond to you. Either read the moderating policy for how or leave an identifier (which could be a nickname for example) at the end of the comment.

Also note that this blog is NOT associated with any public or political officials including Alderman Roderick T. Sawyer!