Three things this week . . . .

I'd been waiting for one of them, the Los Angeles Times poll on the presidential race, to come out. It did and there was no surprise in that the poll's findings indicate that California is "reliably Democratic," as the photo caption on the story put it. ("Obama would take California in November Times/KTLA poll finds")

Maybe the headline could have been, "Duh!" given that the last Republican presidential candidate to win here was George H.W. Bush (against Michael Dukakis). More significantly, however, the story did not put into context that things change, especially in this campaign.

Remember U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's "inevitability?" That was supported by polls more than a year ago. Remember when Senator Obama was winning the New Hampshire primary in the polls, but ended up losing at the polls. There are numerous examples throughout this primary season and throughout history of polls being wrong. Sure, most are correct or close, but so what?

I've never quite understood the desire to "know" the outcome of the contest before the contest is contested. (Full disclosure: When I was in TV news, I got no little grief for opposing the use of precious dollars for polling when they would have paid for another reporter, including benefits.) What's really befuddling is the desire among media, especially TV, to be first to "project" the winner of a contest based, in part, on exit polls and demographic extrapolation. At least the on-air folks get to play with cool maps.

Many polls are taken simply to measure the sentiments of those polled on important issues. Polls are snapshots. The reality is that many polling and news organizations take polls to create a story. There's your context. Most stories about polls don't give you that, much less the fact that they can be wrong.

The LA Times-KTLA poll last week surveyed a total of 834 people and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points overall and 4 points among the included 705 registered voters. The paper's story, unlike many other media that reported the findings, mentioned all that, but didn't do the math for you. That margin of error basically erases the statistical difference between Senators McCain and Obama.

The best way to look at polls might be to heed the same caveat with respect to investing: "Past Performance Is Not A Guarantee Of Future Returns."

See what I did there? Returns? Get it?

Anyway, the Sacramento Bee's ombudsman had a really good take on all this back in January. I had clipped the piece and saved it knowing I would have an opportunity to use it in some way, at least in arguing about polls. Take a look at "The Public Editor: When the subject is a poll's accuracy, size matter."

***

Anybody catch this headline last week?

"THE GOVERNOR'S REVISED BUDGET WOULD PREVENT MORE THAN 400,000 PARENTS FROM OBTAINING MEDI-CAL COVERAGE."

No? Yeah, I missed it too. It's the title of a California Budget Project fact sheet that has at least 80 local stories in it.

The document offers estimates, broken down by Senate and Assembly districts, of how many parents would be "Prevented from Obtaining Coverage in 2008-2009" if, as Gov. Schwarzenegger proposes, the level of maximum income for Medi-Cal eligibility is lowered to "61 percent of the poverty line ($10,736 for a family of three in 2008) and making a related change. The Administration estimates that, when fully implemented, the proposal would reduce the number of low-income parents eligible for Medi-Cal by more than 400,000."

The California Budget Project has other very accessible and very useful analyses of the impact of the budget cut proposals.

***

One small update on my May 12 column . . . .

A piece of legislation, AB 499, sponsored by Assemblyman Sandre Swanson (D-Oakland) and passed by the Assembly to allow children who are arrested for prostitution to be treated as victims instead of criminals is stuck in the Senate because the Senate Public Safety Committee has postponed hearings on the bill. The committee apparently is dealing only with bills originating in the Senate in an effort to meet deadlines in that body.

I had asked why no media were reporting on the fate of the legislation, which could ultimately affect the fate of the abused children. Unfortunately, I had to revert to my reporting days and call Swanson's guy, Doug MacLean, who brought me up to date.