How to Improve the WSOP Main Event Final Table Ratings

The ratings are in and they're not good. Viewership for the 2010 World Series of Poker (WSOP) Main Event final table fell 30% this year to 1.563 million from the 2.2 million viewers who watched last year. There were two significant differences between this year and last that may have contributed to this decline.  ESPN pushed back its airing of the final table to 10:00 pm EST from 9:00 pm and poker superstar Phil Ivey was not at this year's final table.

But neither of those differences tells the entire story of why ratings are not only down, but so low for what is the biggest event of the year for poker. Considering poker's popularity and wide-range appeal, its 0.6 rating in the key 18-to-49 demographic is particularly disappointing.

ESPN put all its eggs in the Main Event basket this year, broadcasting weeks and weeks worth of episodes of the Main Event, adding hours to its coverage, and bringing the final table on air within hours of its completion. In past years, most of the final nine were unknown.  With so many entrants and just one or two tables covered, it was unlikely that anyone who made it to the end would have been seen during the earlier broadcast. Yet this year many of the final nine had their odyssey followed by the TV cameras by the luck of the featured table draw or, in one player's case, by virtue of his celebrity.

Michael Mizrachi was the big story from this year's WSOP and he was featured throughout the months-long telecast, first as one of four brothers doing the impossible by all cashing in the Main Event and then later as he marched toward trying to accomplish the improbable -- winning the $50K Players' Championship, the Main Event and the Player of the Year (which he would have shared with Frank Kassela) in the same year. Mizrachi is more than TV friendly with his outgoing personality, strong table presence and adorable wife.  His inclusion in the November Nine should have more than made up for the absence of Phil Ivey this year.

In addition to Mizrachi, many of the other players who made it to November were already well familiar to the TV audience. Fililppo Candio had more than his share of face time in the early coverage.  From his post-win celebration that cost him a penalty round, to his singing, to his unorthodox play, he was a regular fixture in the early coverage.  He was first spotted on Day 3 when his pocket kings cracked an opponent's pocket aces on the river and he went from dejected to bursting with Mediterranean elation.  At the beginning of Day 4 coverage, ESPN's Lon McEachern pointed out Candio, whom he called "the excitable Italian," as among the chip leaders as they headed to the money and he was at the featured table for Day 5 coverage.

Also seen on Day 5 was Soi Nguyen going from all in to fourth in chips when his full house beat his opponent's rivered flush and Jonathan Duhamel seeing his stack shrink to just fifteen big blinds.  As each of the November Nine moved closer to their date with destiny, they had more face time on ESPN which meant more opportunities to help them connect with viewers.  But this great oppportunity was apparently squandered as the viewers did not appear invested enough in the players they'd been following  for so long to turn out on November 9 to watch them.

So where exactly did ESPN go wrong?

The Announcers
  
Lon McEachern and Norman Chad have been covering the WSOP since 2003.  Lon is an admitted novice when it comes to poker; he is an announcer and nothing more.  Norm is supposed to provide the color commentary and expertise since he at least knows what beats what without having to refer to a cheat sheet, but he is far from an expert commentator.  However, the bigger problem is not in their collective lack of expertise in the sport they are covering, but in the tone of their coverage. 

Norm puts out more effort in trying to come up with a joke than in analyzing the play around the table.  He acts as if he is on the ESPN Classic show Cheap Seats (the sports version of Mystery Science Theatre) where the announcers do a comic riff off of some old sports footage.  A little humor is fine, but the repetitive shtick of Norman Chad has cheapened the show into nothing more than a backdrop for his "ragin' Cajun" or "rambling wreck" jokes or another opportunity to work in one of his cutesy phrases.  We've been collectivel "whamboozled" into buying him as an announcer when he brings "squadoosh" to the telecast.  Lon, doing his best courtesy chuckle a la Ed McMahon, adds absolutely nothing to the broadcast.

Anyone who watched the ESPN3 live stream of the final table heard the commentators actually talk about position and chip stack and momentum.  It wasn't a Comedy Store routine, it was a sports broadcast.  That's what is missing from the ESPN.  The announcers need to take the game seriously, be knowledgeable and enthusiastic, and know how to build and sustain tension.  They need to add to, not detract from, what they are showing.  And they need to respect the game and approach it like any other sport.  Instead, they treat it like a joke, then are surprised when viewers don't take it seriously enough to tune in.

The production

The pacing of the show fails to tell a linear story and fails to build momentum.  It is choppy and unfocused.  It would be as if on Saturdays the college gameday telecast had one play from each of the NCAA football games that were being played that day.  Over here they gained five yards, over there they punted, over there we have an interception and now back over here we have a touchdown.  Hard to get excited without seeing the play in context. 

Here's some extremely telling perspective on what the televised WSOP looks like to the home audience.  This recreational poker player was told by someone who had seen the final table live that he wouldn't believe this one hand when it aired.  This was in reference to the stunning hand in which Matthew Jarvis went from a coin flip, nines versus ace-queen, was behind after two queens came on the flop, went ahead after a nine on the turn, then was knocked out when an ace came on the river.  As someone in the Penn & Teller Theatre during that hand, I can tell you that the audience reacted as if they'd seen a a train wreck with nuclear cargo on board. 

On TV, this hand for the ages paled.  He actually wrote, "I guess they didn't air that hand."  The TV viewer went on to summarize what watching the WSOP final table was like from his perspective.  "That's what they do with the broadcast. All in - player eliminated. All in - wow, player survived. All in - player eliminated. All in - wow, player survived. And now, a little human interest story. All in - we have a new champion. Great poker. I learned a lot."  And that was the review of a poker fan.

There should be summaries of missing hands, if only to say, someone lost a third of their stack here, or someone picked up some chips there.  Without numbering the hands and putting a clock in the corner to show how long action has been going on (two other good ideas), the viewers are left in the dark.  Hands just happen out of nowhere and  without any context of what happened previously.   

We need less jumping around from table to table, and less interrupting the action to give us some irrelevant back story.  We don't pause the action of a Laker's game to discuss Ron Artest's tough childhood neighborhood or update Derek Fisher's daughter's health.  During the game, the broadcast is focused on the action.

The marketing

When the WSOP first announced the development of the November Nine idea, it was sold as a way to build interest in the players.  And after the first year failed to do much to expand their reach beyond poker media, it was said that next year more would be done.  Well,  it's been two "next years" since then and still no one outside of the regular viewers of the WSOP on ESPN knew who was at the final table.  I wrote two years ago that they should use this time to get the players on the Ellen show, teaching her poker, get on Letterman showing him stupid human tricks with poker chips, get on any of the myriad talk shows that seem to need guests like the rest of us need air.  I even went so far to suggest the entire November Nine should be locked up in the Big Brother house.

You have to expose the public to something for them to learn to like it.  If the WSOP stays hidden away two hours a week on ESPN, and the members of the final table do not get their faces out there, they will never expand interest into who wins.  And that is crazy considering there is so much money at stake.  The November Nine need to spend less time with the poker media, who is preaching to the choir and not reaching any new potential viewers, and try to get on The View or Wendy Williams. 

Finally, leading up to the final table, ESPN could broadcast a episode that spotlights each of the nine, stringing together whatever they have of their hands during the earlier rounds.  Have them discuss the linear story, how they went from 30,000 in chips to where they sit today -- tell a story.  Then when they sit around the felt for the final time the audience will know how they got there, feel invested in the outcome, and be watching carefully for how they do.

The WSOP final table will never be treated like a sport so long as it requires any delay and will always be hampered by the necessity of showing hole cards.  Without that, it could be aired live.  Perhaps if the players where stashed in a hermetically sealed chamber buried deep underground in Burbank, California, and there was no risk of information being relayed to them, we could do that.  But barring that, there are steps that can be taken to make the broadcast more professional, more exciting, and more accessible.

The WSOP Main Event Final Table -- So How's My Predicting

I could have gone back and edited my last blog post, change my predictions, and look like a genius today.  The final two?  Well, that's easy.  Jonathan Duhamel, the overwhelming chip leader going into the final table, and savvy John Racener.  But, in the interest of honesty -- and since I couldn't edit the podcast with Lou Krieger where I made my fearless, and now feckless, prognostication -- let me say, you win some, you lose some.

Here's where I was right.  Soi Nguyen, the only true amateur at the table and one of the smallest chipstacks, did leave first.  Matthew Jarvis also did not make a deep run, as I predicted, but was dealt a cruel hand to be his last.  Jason Senti lasted longer than he should have considering how exceedingly shortstacked he was, and I thought he might move up a couple slots because he is a pretty good player.  Okay, so far, so good. 

Then we get to John Dolan.  The Allen Cunningham doppelganger let me down in a big way.  He went from second in chips to out in sixth place.  Sure, his play cost him some seven million dollars give or take, but he cost me my poker handicapping reputation (which I didn't have and now won't).  He won four of the first sixteen hands and I -- I mean, he -- was looking good.  Then in all started to unravel.  He (pun alert) "flushed" about 13 million chips down the toilet when he tangled with Joseph Cheong.  Dolan had pocket jacks in a hand that Cheong had reraised preflop.  Dolan slow-played his over pair on a ten-high flop, checked again when a queen came on the turn, but a third jack on the river got his attention.  Unfortunately, it also completed a runner-runner nut flush for Cheong. 

He never got anything going and only won a couple small pots, mostly slowly chipping away before letting Jonathan Duhamel finish him off when the now short-stacked Dolan pushed queen-five suited against Duhamel's pocket fours and the board blanked.  My first place finisher was out in sixth place.

I did not expect Candio to do as well as fourth and he probably wouldn't have had Mizrachi not made that ill-timed move with pocket threes.  If you're new to poker, let me tell you pocket threes is not a powerhouse.  If your a poker expert who was this close to player of the year after winning a prestigious bracelet earlier in the year, let me tell you pocket threes is not worth pushing with.  Even against someone you think is gunshy.  Even against someone who just lost half their stack.   Even against someone you know is holding pocket twos (okay, maybe then, but only then).  If you ever see pocket threes again, run as fast as you can in the opposite direction.  They may be the only hand worse than pocket jacks.  But Mizrachi decided to make a move with those threes and paid the price with a disappointing fifth place finish.

But aside from my not being able to pick a poker winner, what I'll remember most from that night were the sick, sick hands that dispatched many of the players.   Matthew Jarvis moved all in with pocket nines, Michael Mizrachi calls with a suited ace-queen.  The flop a decisive queen-eight-queen.  Mizrachi has the hand locked up, right?  Jarvis is on life support.  Until a miraculous nine fall on the turn.  I gasped, everyone collectively gasped and for a moment I thought oxygen masks would fall down from the ceiling.  Then the river.  An ace!!  I turned to the people around me -- did they see what I saw?  Aliens landed, Big Foot attacked, Lindsey Lohan made a good career move.  I wasn't sure I still had a pulse. 

Here's the hand if you haven't seen it yet.  Even if you have, it's like a car accident, you can't not look:


That was the theme for much of the final table.  In another hand that tested how sturdy my heart is,  Jason Senti had battled back from his position as a super short stack to see two players out before him.  He was all in against Joseph Cheong, with ace-king against Cheong's pocket tens.  The flop seemed emphatic (where have I seen that before?) with king-king-queen.  A set of kings should be good.  A set should hold up.  Cheong has just two outs, a ten to make a full house.  Until the turn comes a jack.  Now Cheong has four additional outs, any nine will give him a straight for the win.  The audience again loudly acknowledged the sweat, and then the unthinkable happened again.  A nine of the river turned the loser into a winner and sent another player to the rail. 

There were other sick hands.  Senti earlier had chipped up against Cheong by catching running cards to make a flush after he was way behind after the flop.  Racener doubling through Duhamel when he went heads up way, way behind, ace-queen versus ace-king, and hit the queen on the flop.  All I could think was, live poker is so rigged. 

So congrats to the winner -- you didn't do what I thought you would do and use your huge chip stack to try, unsuccessfully, to bully the table.  And thanks to John Racener for making half my top two prediction come true.

Who Will Win the 2010 WSOP Main Event?

Predicting the winner of the World Series of Poker Main Event would probably be best left up to Paul the octopus.  But with his recent demise, I have weighed in with my own selections as to who will come out on top from the November Nine.  Keeping in mind that I never saw either Jerry Yang or Joe Cada as having a Republican's chance in California of winning, I'm probably wrong. 

On Lou Krieger's show Keep Flopping Aces, I predicted John Dolan to come in first, with John Racener as my next pick.  Surprisingly, Lou agreed with me and so we have nothing wagered on this outcome -- we're either both geniuses or both the victims of bad luck.  Here's the link to the podcast where Lou and I discuss all nine and make our fearless predictions:  Rounders Radio.  Here's the link to Lou's most recent blog article regarding the final table and our picks:  Keep Flopping Aces.  Please overlook the unnecessarily large picture of me and trust that my hair has moved into the 21st Century.

So why the two Johns?  Let's start with the premise that the chip leader going in is going to take too many risks, overplay his hands, and be the shorter stacks' target early on.  Add to that the fact that Jonathan Duhamel was ridiculously lucky to get all those chips.  That hand against Matt Affleck means Duhamel is out of luck, probably for the rest of his life. He made a bad call that turned into a stunning bad beat for Affleck and gave Duhamel a monstrous stack of chips. It is likely that what the poker gods gave, they will just as soon take away. Here's video of that hand.  Be warned, it's not for the squeamish. And to read more about Duhamel's path to the final nine, click here.



John Dolan reminds me a lot of Allen Cunningham -- he's calm, laid back, all business. I think a cool demeanor will help him at the final table just as it did following what was a disastrous Day 7 where he ended the day 24th out of 27. He fought back on Day 8, winning not by sucking out, a la Duhamel, but by putting it in with the best. And during the six-and-a-half marathon bubble play, he doubled his chip stack by showing fearless aggression -- exactly what he'll need this weekend. For more on how Dolan got to the final table, click here.

I like John Racener's position going into the final table.  He's fourth in chips and so has some chips with which to play, possibly at the expense of the short stacks, and some time before he needs to worry about the big stacks.  He's a solid player who has already amassed good results with four cashes in last year's WSOP and three others this year prior to the Main Eent.  His play was less than stellar the last half of Day 8 and that actually gives him the chance to learn from those mistakes and go to the final table better prepared.  Click here for a recap of Racener's run at the Main Event. 

Who doesn't want Michael Mizrachi to win?  Well, besides the eight other guys at the table, I'd say only Frank Kassela, who will have to share WSOP Player of the Year with Mizrachi if he pulls out that win.  Mizrachi has managed to overcome some problems with Uncle Sam earlier in the year to become the feel-good story of the 2010 WSOP, along with his many brothers.  His nickname "the Grinder" is not ironic and it's that steady play that may compensate for his rather anemic stack going into tomorrow.  With just a little over 14 million, fewer than thirty big blinds, Mizrachi will have to find some good hands early.  But if he does, watch out -- he could spoil Kassela's party.  Click here for the recap of how Mizrachi made it to the final table. 

Up until I watched the ESPN broadcast of Day 8, I couldn't have picked Matthew Jarvis out of a lineup, and I'd already written two articles about him.  He does not have much of a presence, which usually signals doom at a poker table.  On the other hand, he sits in the middle of the pack, which is actually a good place from which to make a move.  And he did show some muscle on Day 6, taking out four opponents before the dinner break.  What we've seen of him on TV shows a solid, deliberate, no frills player.  I should be more bullish on him, but for some reason I'm not.  Click here for my article on how he made it to the final table. 

Joseph "subiime" Cheong should be a favorite.  He sits third in chips, he's a darn good player, and he's even had success in the interim since making the final table.  Yet I don't see the killer instinct and bold aggression that the winner is going to need to take this down.  What impressed me -- his unflappability following that cruel bad beat at the hand of Filippo Candio -- maybe his undoing.  Poker players should get riled up from time to time.  He may lack the killer instinct necessary to win it all.  Read my recap of his play here.

Amateur Soi Nguyen has an all-star team of poker friends, but one of the shortest stacks at the table.  Filippo Candio is the first Italian to make it to the final table, but he's used up all his Ave Marias just getting there, as is evidenced by the sick whooping he laid on Cheong:


Finally we have Jason Senti.  I must apologize for mispronouncing his name repeatedly on Lou's show.  Apparently it's sent-eye, not sent-ee.  However you say it, with fewer than fifteen times the big blind, he'll need a good hand pretty soon for us to even worry about having to say his name.  But I like the guy.  He's a rocker, which already makes him a-okay in my book.  Plus, he's has a great, easy-going personality which can be disarming at the table.  If he doubles up quickly, he could be this year's Jerry Yang.

President Obama's Post "Shellacking" Speech

The White House YouTube channel not only has the entire speech and press conference from the day after the midterm election, but an interactive transcript. Wish I'd seen that before I started trying to transcribe what the president was saying. Here's the video in its entirety:


One of the parts I found most telling came at the 50 minute mark. The reporter asked the president "Are you willing to make any changes in your leadership style?" This is what the president said:

Folks didn’t have any complaints about my leadership style when I was running around Iowa for a year and they got a pretty good look at me up close and personal. They were able to lift the hood and kick the tires. I think they understood that my story was theirs. I might have a funny name and I might have lived in some different places, but the values of hard work and responsibility and honesty and lookin’ out for one another that had been instilled in them by their parents those were the same values that I took from my mom and my grandparents. So the track record has been that when I’m out of this place, that’s not an issue. When you're in this place it is hard not to seem removed. And one of the challenges that we've got to think about is how to I meet my responsibilities here in the White House which requires a lot of hours and a lot of work but still have the opportunity to engage with the American people on a day-to-day basis and give them confidence that I’m listening to them.

So the president admitted what many of us have been saying for years -- that he is a better campaigner than he is a president. He admits that he was successful in Iowa, shaking hands and giving speeches, but not as successful in the White House. Interestingly, this seems similar to his experience in Harvard Law School, where he first showed his talent at campaigning and also showed that, once elected, he leaves the actual work to others.

Unfortunately, while we have a political system that requires a person be a good campaigner as a prerequisite to getting into office, we will often have people running the government whose talent stops at the point that they are sworn in. It would be nice if we as a voting public weren't so swayed by personality and charm and poise and looks, but we are. We often wrongly conclude that if you are good enough and smart enough to run a good campaign, that will translate to your talent once you've taken office. But as our current president has proved, this is a false syllogism.

Barack Obama had no policy ideas, no plans for America, no solutions. What he had was the ability to tap into the national zeitgeist at just the right time. Plus, the Republicans helped him out with a lackluster campaigner in John McCain and a divisive lightning rod in Sarah Palin. And George Bush did much to inflame the anti-Republican passions with his disconnected affect and inability to articulate. This plus the excitement that Obama engendered led to his big win in 2008. But this win was misinterpreted as a shift to the left in America -- and the election Tuesday confirmed that the country does not want to move in that direction.

Many in America have been feeling buyer's remorse since Obama was sworn into office and Tuesday was the first chance to demonstrate that dissatisfaction. They had believed his campaign rhetoric about change only to discover that their trust was misguided. His was as one-sided an administration as Nixon's, distrustful and rejecting of the other side, patronizing the opposition, full of hubris. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid thought they could belittle and marginalize the Republicans and restructure the government in their image, regardless of what the American people really wanted.

Their liberal agenda received the shellacking -- his word -- that it deserved. Now it's up to the Republicans to take their mandate and turn it into some real change in government. Go back to the original Republican values that were abandoned during much of the Bush administration. Bring spending down, help businesses create jobs, streamline the government, and keep our nation safe. They have two years to make good on their promises and to justify the faith the American people have placed in them.

Republican Party Moving Toward Greater Diversity

As a Jewish female it has often bothered me that my party of choice is mostly led by a collection of old White guys. When Michael Steele became the new face of the Republican Party, I was happy with the change, yet worried that he was still the exception that proved the rule.

Yesterday’s landslide victory for Republicans may be the big story, but lost in that headline is the fact that the Republicans elected a number of candidates outside the usual white, male stereotype. With the election of Marco Rubio, Susanna Martinez, Brian Sandoval, Nikki Haley, Mary Fallin, Kelly Ayotte, Tim Scott and Allen West, the Republican Party is starting a move towards looking more like America.

Marco Rubio, a second-generation Cuban American, was elected Senator in Florida, fending off both the Democrat opponent but also a run by independent Charlie Crist. In Nevada, while Democrat Harry Reid held on to his Senate seat, Republican Brian Sandoval defeated Reid's son to become the state’s first Hispanic governor. In nearby New Mexico, Susana Martinez became the first female governor of her state and the first Latina governor in the country.

Allen West’s win in South Florida’s 22nd Congressional District makes him the first African-American Republican to represent Florida in Congress since the 1870s. Similarly, in South Carolina, Tim Scott -- who defeated Strom Thurmond's son -- became the first African-American Republican to represent that state in Congress since the Reconstruction.  Speaking about their historic wins, Timothy F. Johnson, the founder and chairman of The Frederick Douglass Foundation, told an interviewer last night that "we can say with pride that America is a diverse and unique country. Its people are not monolithic looking, thinking, or voting." But in an effort to deflect attention away from race and on to policy, he added, "The best candidates won, and that includes the black Republicans who will take their seats in the U.S. House of Representatives January 2011."

Nikki Haley, of South Carolina, and Mary Fallin, of Oklahoma, became the first female governors of their states. Haley, an Indian-American, became the second Republican of Indian heritage to win a major election, joining Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Kelly Ayotte adds her name to the growing list of female Republican senators which also includes likely write-in winner Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, and Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. While they were unsuccessful in their bids last night, other women running as Republicans included former CEOs Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California and Tea Party favorite, but polarizing, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware.

Before yesterday’s election, Republican Party chairman Steele discussed his party’s move towards greater diversity, running ten African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and more than 100 women for Congress. "I think we've made great strides in that regard." He added a hopeful note, "I think we will see - and have seen over the course of the past year - more and more people of color, people of diverse backgrounds, identifying with our party."

I share that optimism and welcome more people to join us under what will increasingly become a much bigger tent.

Vote Tomorrow!!!

One of the more interesting biennial occurrences in America is the midterm election. It is usually not so much about the candidates or issues of that election cycle, as much as a response to what happened two years earlier. The midterm election is the electorate’s response to the President and Congress’ symbolic “How’s my driving?” bumper sticker.

We’ve had the “contract with America” election of 1994 in which the voters told Bill Clinton and the Democratic-controlled Congress we’re not happy. In 2006, it was the Republican president and representatives who heard the deafening “NO!” from the voters. It’s time again for the disgruntled and disillusioned to have their say, and pollsters and prognosticators are predicting a landslide victory for Republican candidates in the house with strong gains in the Senate and the State houses.

I would think that this year, it would be hard to find a voter who wasn’t angry with those in power. On the Liberal side of the spectrum, you voted for “change” only to see most of your key issues not addressed. Yes, a form of health care restructuring was passed, but it was not as extreme as the Liberals wanted. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is still being supported by this administration in the courts, we’re still in Iraq and Pakistan, even Gitmo is still open.

Moderates who believed that Obama would bring bipartisan change to Washington have seen him lock Republicans out of meetings and promote divisiveness. They’ve seen money poured into solve every problem, the administration giving more handouts than a pedophile at Halloween.

Conservatives have seen every core value they hold dear come under attack and they’ve been ridiculed and marginalized as crazy extremists. Those who wanted limited government and tax relief have been labeled as evil or uncaring. Our president has recently told Republicans, they can get on the bus, but they’ll have to sit in the back.

So if no one is happy with the direction this President and this Congress are taking America, what will happen tomorrow? Much depends, as it always does, on voter turnout. There is no clearer way to make your opinion known that to vote. For all the water cooler talk, blogging, posting, tweeting, calling into talk radio, it is only what you do tomorrow that really matters.

I live in California where Republicans have put up two candidates for the major contests that have failed to ignite voter excitement. Meg Whitman has run a confusing campaign for Governor, spending too much time trying to court unlikely voters rather than rallying the Republican base. This is not the year to pander or run as a moderate. Carly Fiorina could have won in a landslide if she just ran commercials of Senator Boxer talking. Whether she was a godsend at Hewlett-Packard or just another overpaid executive, she would be infinitely better for California than the “reliably liberal” Boxer.

As a Republican, I hope the turnout of other Republicans in California will be great enough to overcome the less than electrifying campaigns these two women have run. And if they have to win by virtue of anti-Obama, anti-Brown and anti-Boxer votes, rather than based on any voter enthusiasm for them, I’ll take it.

If you want to have your voice heard, if you are not happy with the direction the country is moving, then say something where and when it counts. VOTE tomorrow.

California Proposition 19 -- Is the State Going to Pot?

According to the most recent polling information, California State Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana possession, is likely to go down to defeat.  The nonpartisan Field Poll results for October 31st show only 42% of likely voters support Proposition 19, while 49% oppose it.  This is a reversal from polling in September which showed the initiative leading 49-to-42%.

Currently, possession of a small amount of marijuana, if prosecuted at all, is dealt with like a traffic fine.  And marijuana is legal for medicinal uses.  So why the need for the initiative?  Some support legalization to end hypocrisy and double standards (why is possession of pot criminalized at all while alcohol is not, they'll say), while others believe the state is missing out on the potential revenue that taxation would afford.  Proposition 19 would not just legalize pot, but would also allow local governments to regulate and tax the sale of marijuana in the State. 

Candidates for statewide election on both sides of the aisle have indicated their opposition to the proposition as have the police chiefs of every county save San Francisco.  Some oppose the initiative because they don't want to appear soft on drugs or on crime.  Others, such as the L.A. Times, think the law would create an unnecessary additional level of governmental bureaucracy by requiring each of the 536 separate cities and counties in the State to impose their own rules.

The outcome for this proposition may be affected by the turnout.  If Republicans, motivated to send an anti-Obama message to Washington, come out in droves, it is likely that Prop. 19 will go down to defeat.  Latest polling shows Democrats support Prop 19 by a slim majority (51%), while Republicans oppose it 65% to 25%.  Voters under 40 years old (who lean Democrat) support the initiative 54% to 38%, while voters 65 or older (more likely Republican) are against it, 63% to 29%.

This may not be the year that pot becomes legalized in California, but proponents will surely try again.  Perhaps a rewrite that better establishes regulatory policies would overcome some of the more mainstream opposition.  But it is surprising that a State that looks to be sending one of the most Liberal Senators back to Washington is too conservative to support legalizing marijuana.