Interestingly, this editorial ran during the same time the Journal was printing hard news stories on the results of its polling by Brian Sanderoff, a respected Albuquerque-based pollster. Oddly enough, the Journal‘s policy is to editorialize on any topic that has appeared in its paper. This 10 percent figure was passed off as a bona fide statistic from its own scientifically-based polling; however, nowhere in previous editions of the Journal—editions that were full of Sanderoff's polling results, including opinions on the Street Bond—was this statistic listed. The 10 percent figure, it seems, exists nowhere in the universe, except in the minds of the Journal editorial page editor. Besides, isn't it a bit patronizing to call Paseo opponents a “fringe” group, when it includes the entire Native American community in the state?
Eli Lee of the Vote No on the Street Bonds Committee emailed this analysis, after doing his own bit of investigating: “I asked the Journal to provide substantiation of the 10 percent figure, since it seems ludicrously low given that the street bonds were defeated 55 percent to 45 percent just one year ago, and in the Journal’s own poll last month, the Albuquerque electorate was essentially evenly divided on the Paseo question. They simply replied that it’s their job to editorialize, and that ’10 percent' was their opinion. … I asked if they had talked to their own pollster about this figure or if they had any data at all from the lengthy poll they conducted to back up this claim. They did not. … It appears that the Journal simply made this number up, not surprising given its lengthy and fierce support for the Paseo extension.”