The polls don't look good for Newsome, but thank god for blogs. I found a reputable SF political blog that said the KPIX numbers are suspect.

"KPIX Poll Not Worth the Paper It's Printed On

A couple of days ago, KPIX-TV Channel 5 released “poll” numbers that purported to show Matt Gonzalez leading Gavin Newsom by a few percentage points in the Mayor's race.

Unfortunately, the results had absolutely no bearing on reality. Indeed, this “poll” has so many problems that it's hard to know where to begin - but let's try anyway.

First - the thing wasn't done by human beings. It was done by machine. People simply responded by punching buttons on their telephones in response to automated questions. These types of polls are well known to be useless, absolutely unreliable and highly inaccurate.

More importantly, though, the KPIX poll didn't sample likely voters, or even registered voters. It simply asked participants whether or not they were likely to vote - and of course, the overwhelming majority said they would, so their response counted.

Let's put this in context: 52 percent of the folks polled in the KPIX poll said they were “certain to vote” and another 44 percent said they were “probably” going to vote, which means that, if these numbers are to be believed, the turnout for the Dec. 9 election will be somewhere around 96 percent.

That ain't gonna happen.

Even in the best years, voter turnout barely breaks 60 percent; the turnout in the general election on Nov. 4 was only 45 percent and historically, the numbers for the runoff are always lower. If more than 35 percent turn out next month, that would be a strong showing.

Yet, no one at KPIX saw fit to put the numbers in the proper context when the results were reported. Instead, KPIX and the station's partner in crime, the San Francisco Chronicle, simply reported the “poll” results as if they were statistically valid, which they clearly are not.

To say that was a disservice to the station's viewers and the paper's readers would be an understatement, at best. "

KPIX used Survey USA at the time this article was posted, and they used the same survey company again for the November 25 poll.

Thanks to FJGallagher for the info.

That SF Bay Guardian story got me so fascinated that I decided to check out the San Francisco Ethics Commission website. Contributions made to a campaign is public information, and candidates have to list who contributes to their cause.

What's great about the SF Ethics site, is you can look at previous searches that people did. Sure enough, there were recent searches done on the campaign contributions for both campaigns. I haven't found a summary yet, and I wonder if some poor schlep from the Bay Guardian had to add everyhing up in excel.

Anyway, here's some interesting contributors I found while glancing through the donations list. You have to list your profession and employer.

Some of Newsome's contributors:
Kirk Hammett - Lead Singer, Metallica
Non-Profit Executive, Habitat for Humanity SF
Priest, St. Gregory of NYSSA Episcopal Ch.
Self Emp Writer (wish this was me!)
Self Emp Singer/Songwriter
Self Emp Tech Entrepreneur
Not Employed

From the San Francisco Bay Guardian, maps to contributions to the Newsome and Gonzalez mayoral campaigns.

The SF Bay Guardian is trying to say that Gonzalez gets backing from the Westside neighbourhoods, but if you read the legend of the map, 13-23 people gave money from my hood 94122 and from the adjacent hood of 94116, 8-12 people gave money. And my hoods aren't the richest ones either; it's very working class.

If you look at Newsome's map between 132 - 235 people contributed to Newsome campaign from zip 94122 and from zip 94116.

How do you compare over 100-200 people to 13-23 people, and say that he has contributions from the Westside?

The maps are eye-opening though. That's a alot of people contributing to the Newsome's campaign from all over the city. I had no idea that many people contributed to political campaigns.

If people really liked Gonzalez, doesn't logic tell you that he should be getting as many contributors as Newsome, especially from the hoods he won? I'm impressed and truly suprised, that so many San Francisco people gave of their hard earned money in these awful economic times.

But logic never seems to have any credence in the media or politics.

If the Bay Guardian were really fair, which they're often not, shouldn't they be reporting on the discrepancy betwen the number of people sending in contributions to Newsome versus Gonzalez?

Now either the SF Bay Guardian can't make maps and they've got the Gonzalez map wrong because $64,500 contributions plus $64,023 doesn't add up to the total of $99,500. The map so doesn't make sense, and why is that I wonder.

But the real story is the amount of contributors. Not the amounts, because rich people always give more, but the sheer numbers of people contributing to Newsome compared Gonzalez.

I know the state of Cali is in a big bad budget mess, and cuts have to be made but why do the budget cuts have to affect the poor, disabled and helpless in the state.

From the LA Times, Gov.'s Cuts to Hit Poor, Universities.

Here are some of the grim highlights:

Schwarzenegger's proposal would save $282 million by eliminating music, art, camping and other nonmedical therapy programs for the roughly 626,000 Californians who have mental or physical impairments that make it difficult to learn, speak or care for themselves. Another cut involves suspending the Lanterman Act, which guarantees myriad services for the developmentally disabled.

Another reduction would save $385 million by cutting cleaning, transportation and other in-home services that the state provides to the elderly, blind and disabled to help keep them out of nursing homes.

A smaller cut — $77 million — would freeze enrollment in several programs, including Healthy Families, which provides health care for children of the working poor, and which Schwarzenegger praised during the campaign. The freeze would create waiting lists for that program.