New in-depth poll shows solid support for privatization

Today, the Commonwealth Foundation (a pro-business, conservative/libertarian Harrisburg policy group) released results from a poll they commissioned from Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, a public opinion research group based in Santa Monica. I'd note from the beginning that FM3 does scientific polling, and is a group that mostly works with Democratic political candidates (almost exclusively, as you can see from this client list). CF president Matt Brouillette took pains to point that out, explaining that they didn't want an easy poll from a supportive group, they wanted an honest result.  I got an invite to attend a briefing on the polling data last night, and it was an interesting evening.(The highlights are presented in a slideshow here.)

In the last week of January 2013, FM3 polled 800 randomly-selected PA registered voters (using both cell and landline phones), then did an "oversampling" of more extensive interviews with 200 voters in the "outer Philadelphia market," essentially the southeast part of the state without Philadelphia County itself. Their research found some of the strongest support for privatization in that part of the state, and they wanted to look at what made up that support.

Enough about how the poll was done. Overall, 41% strongly favored ending state-run liquor stores, 19% "somewhat favored" it. 20% strongly opposed, 14% "somewhat opposed." 61% in favor, 35% opposed, 5% don't know/no answer. Note that there was a much lower "don't know" response than in the recent F&M poll that found 53% in favor. The pollster noted that in the F&M poll, the privatization question was a much simpler one (do you favor privatization of the liquor stores), and it immediately followed the question about the very unpopular privatization of the state lottery, which likely had an effect.

In the polled folks' own words, and in descending order, the strongest reasons for supporting privatization: less government regulation (which surprised me); convenience/buying beer/wine in supermarkets; 'keeping up' with other states/seen it work in other states (the pollster noted a kind of competitive spirit here, people feeling that the state was behind the other states in this aspect); better prices (note: this is fourth on the list); private enterprise is better; more choices/variety; more money for local economy; waste of tax dollars; ability to have booze shipped to home (way down the list...). Other reasons had 2% support or less.

Another interesting point: I've always complained that newspaper articles ask the people who are actually shopping in the LCB stores if they're satisfied. If they weren't, they'd be in Maryland, I always thought. Well...the poll asked how often people purchased from the State Stores. Support for privatization was strongest (77%!) among the most frequent purchasers! I suspect this is probably the people who are not close to a border; because those of us who are generally are buying across that border... The strongest opposition to privatization -- in fact, the ONLY group of people asked this question who opposed privatization -- is among people who admit that they NEVER purchase anything at the State Stores. Teetotalers and anti-alcohol types, in other words. Only 35% support privatization.

Geographic breakdown? The ONLY area opposed to privatization is Philadelphia County, 50% opposed, 46% in favor. Allegheny County: 69% in favor. "Outer Philadelphia" as explained above: 66% in favor. "The T," that part of the state left after carving out the southwest and southeast corners, made famous by James Carville in his characterization of Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between": a surprising 62% in favor! Northeast PA: 59% in favor. I talked to a representative from the T area who was at the event, whose district was not one I'd expect to support privatization for social conservative reasons. "They're rednecks," he said, "redneck libertarians." We could be seriously over-estimating the opposition to this.

What else? Well, there's very little gender split: 62% of men and 60% of women support it. The older a voter is, the less-likely they are to support privatization: in all age groups but the oldest, a majority support it (75+ year olds only support it by 49%, but only 42% are opposed). Party affiliation: support is strongest among Independents -- 71% -- and Republicans -- 69% -- but even 52% of Democrats support it. Surprisingly, support was stronger among self-identified liberal Democrats, which I think shows the truth of what I've been saying: this is not a classic privatization issue; this is not really a union issue. This is about correcting a mistake.

Union members? 52% of union members support privatization, and 58% of people in union households support it. That's compared to 61% in non-union households; almost within margin of error.

But possibly the most interesting and promising takeaway from the poll is what happened when people were presented with arguments against privatization after making their initial response. The pollster said that support for a proposition usually melts a bit after arguments against it are presented; 10-15% is normal. I'll remind you: overall, the support for privatization at the initial question was 61%. After hearing only the supporters' arguments, 61% still favored it. After hearing only the opponent's arguments -- which were essentially the UFCW talking points as presented by Wendell W. Young IV --
61% still favored privatization. And after hearing both sets of arguments, support was at 62%.

The weakest opposition argument was no surprise: people reacted very negatively to the "we should modernize rather than privatize" proposition. Only 19% found that credible, and those who did not were quite firm about it.

Is privatization an important issue for people, one that will influence how they vote for governor or legislator based on how the incumbent voted? No, it is not. Under 20% felt that strongly on either side of the issue. But...that means while there is not much upside for a politician voting for privatization, there is also very little downside on voting for privatization. There is not an army of social conservative voters, or a horde of angry union voters, who will vote out of office anyone who votes for privatization.

To sum up: about 61% of Pennsylvanians are in favor of privatization, a number that has been consistent for decades. The only group in the state that is opposed are Philadelphia voters, and even there, it's a narrow divide: 50% opposed, 46% in favor.

We had a chance to ask the pollster questions, and Matt Brouillette asked a good one. "If you had been hired by [UFCW president] Wendell W. Young, what would you advise as a strategy after presenting these results to him?" And the pollster, from the firm that has worked mostly for Democratic candidates, done polling for AFSCME, for the Sierra Club, for the California School Employee Association...said, "I'd say cut a deal."

This is NOT a done deal. This proposal needs work, and especially needs to get buy-in from the beer industry. But I feel a lot better after hearing these results. The work begins.

A Plea for Civility; a plea for truth

First, watch this video. (very sorry; it's no longer available. Glad I took the time to transcribe so much of it!) It's Joe "Da CEO" Conti wrapping up his testimony at last week's Liquor Control Committee hearings (which were, apparently, largely about Conti and Hereditary Union President For Life Wendell W. Young IV speaking for as long as they could...probably because they know that if you talk till lunch, most legislators will leave and not give any time to your opponents) with "a little bit of a challenge for civility to the proponents of the bill (HB11)."

He then quoted legislative press offices and "a think tank" -- which I assume is the Commonwealth Foundation -- making remarks about the PLCB and him that...well, they were things like "The PLCB doesn't care about the consumer; ineptitude, goofy, or systematic malfeasance," and "a state system that is broke, even Joe Conti realizes it," and "a state of perpetual tone-deafness...the PLCB should stop acting like coneheads and communists."

Okay, Joe's feelings are hurt. (Mine are too; he didn't say anything about some of the stuff I've said about the PLCB.) But he's clearly never been the target of a Tony Auth cartoon (looks like a conehead to me). This is the "rough and tumble of public life:" man up. I get hate mail all the time -- really, people actually bother -- and you don't see me crying about it, and certainly not to a legislative committee...oh, right. Conti is a former legislator (who didn't get re-elected because he was completely tone-deaf about the legislative pay increases a few years back), and he's looking for professional courtesy from former colleagues. Nice. If only we could all expect such courtesy.

But he blew it -- for me, at least, and I hope for anyone else with a spot of brain matter -- when he then immediately started spouting the UFCW party line about newspapers. See, the UFCW has seen that almost every newspaper across the state has editorialized in favor of privatization, often scathingly, and they needed a response. Their response: the newspapers are doing it for money, because of all the advertising bucks they'll make off private liquor stores. (Though the PLCB spends big bucks on advertising now, and the Inky runs full-page ads for cross-border liquor stores -- more proof of border bleed, Joe.)

So Conti's pleading for "civility," and the first thing he says after that "challenge" is this: "Now we understand many of the proponents are financiers of print media. I've met with most of them, they're very up-front about it, we get that. We understand that the think tank perhaps receives funding from these financiers..." And then he drops that, and goes off in a completely different direction of how "we welcome" this debate ("relish it," he also said). But he's slyly planted the stinking smear-seed that maybe the Commonwealth Foundation is just doing this for money, at the behest of "financiers" who are just doing it for money. Says that, and doesn't back it up, or have the guts to stick it home. Does he deserve civility?

And then he -- well, I was about to say "he lies," but let's be civil and say he once again clouds the issue by saying "If we disappear, your income tax has to go from 3.07 to 3.21 [percent]. You know that." What's he talking about? He's talking about The Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax and the 6% state sales tax that make up approximately 3/4 of the PLCB's "contribution" to the General Fund. And he's 'clouding the issue' by leaving you with the impression that if the PLCB is no longer the state's booze seller, no booze taxes will be collected, and the state will make up the difference with income tax. That's not lying, but it's the next best (worst?) thing.

He goes on to shamelessly wrap himself in the flag. Better get a kleenex ready. "We must be mindful when you walk by a playground, speak to a Rotary Club or a local Chamber, or when you visit a senior center, those Pennsylvanians are benefiting by the performance of this agency. And we get up every day, and we want to do a better job for the people of Pennsylvania. There's really no reason for the incivility we see." He's made selling vodka into an altruistic mission; amazing.

So right after saying there's no reason for incivility...he makes a threat!* Conti issues a challenge (he's got a whole pocketful, apparently) "Michael [Turzai] and Jonathan [Newman] and Matthew [Brouillette]" to debate the issues. "But let's keep it on point, because I'm warning you: if you get off point...[dramatic pause] I'm for the people of Pennsylvania. And anything that either purposely or inadvertantly diminishes our performance and diminishes our return, hits the pocketbook of the people of Pennsylvania, the innocent folks who may not be as emotionally invested in this as you, as the proponents are."

Conti calls for us all to be civil. Then he smears the intentions of the proponents of privatization, he deliberately misstates the results of privatization, he claims moral high ground (for an agency that performs retail sales?), and dramatically threatens his opponents. I don't owe Joe Conti anything. He's trying to set the terms of this debate to benefit the PLCB and himself. He says "financiers" perhaps fund the privatization proponents? He benefits directly from privatization not happening; he has a $150,000 a year job that will disappear if privatization goes through! Is it uncivil to bring that up?

What's civil in political discourse? No one's brought anyone's personal life into this (with the necessary exception of the husband-wife relationship between the winner of the PLCB's 'courtesy contract' and his wife, the PLCB regional manager), no one's made any personal threats, no one -- to the best of my knowledge -- has engaged in anything beyond a bit of name-calling. Does Conti ever watch Fox News or MSNBC (or Olbermann, wherever the hell he is now)? There is no need for excess civility; it's clearly an attempt to hobble the debate in favor of the PLCB and the status quo.

Meanwhile, Conti has other problems. It appears that earlier in the hearing he lied -- sorry, Stacey Witalec says Conti "misspoke," whatever -- about the PLCB's committee looking at the wine kiosks. That's in the Tribune-Review today. "In response to a question about that recommendation, Conti told the House Liquor Control Committee the report did not recommend against the LCB's plan." Oops, turns out not to be the case: "A review by LCB Chief Counsel Faith Diehl found the final report "recommends against going forward and does contain the word deficient," Witalec wrote in an e-mail.

Where's the civility in lying -- sorry, misspeaking, I keep getting that wrong -- to a state legislative committee made up of your former colleagues? 

*He also makes an amazingly inappropriate Blazing Saddles reference, but you'll have to watch the video, words don't do it justice. And remember the actual line that Conti bowdlerizes...amazing.

Wine Kiosk Debacle Footnote

The Commonwealth Foundation has posted the documents referred to in my previous Wine Kiosk post -- the ones where the PLCB's own internal evaluation committee advised against the wine kiosks -- here.

I don't really think any further comment is necessary.