Upload
builiem
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Senate battleground survey:
Battling unlimited money to empower regular citizens
helps Democrats
July 24, 2014
Methodology
This presentation is based on this unique survey of 1,000 likely 2014 voters in the most competitive Senate races across the country, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Democracy Corps and the Public Campaign Action Fund. This survey was conducted from July 12-16, 2014 using a list of 2006 voters, 2010 voters, and new registrants. Unless otherwise noted, the margin of error for the full sample is = +/- 3.10% at 95% confidence. 50 percent of respondents were reached by cell phone, in order to account for ever-changing demographics and trying to accurately sample the full American electorate.
Background and Trend Information
3
The Democracy Corps Senate battleground research is one of a kind. Nobody else conducts a poll only in the most competitive Democratic and Republican seats, using the actual names of the incumbents in each district. We include comparisons to a survey done in June, 2014 in partnership with NPR and Resurgent Republic. While the districts remain the same, the July survey is the only survey to use actual names of incumbents and call voters that are likely to vote in the 2014 November election. Respondents were selected off of a voter list who voted in the 2006 or 2010 off-year elections or new registrants with a high intention to vote in 2014. 81 percent of respondents are white. 9 percent of these voters are under 30 3 percent are Latino and 10 percent African American.
Battleground States
4
States Incumbent 2012 Presidential margin
Alaska Mark Begich Romney +14.0
Arkansas Mark Pryor Romney +23.6
Colorado Mark Udall Obama +4.7
Georgia OPEN (Chambliss) Romney +8.0
Iowa OPEN (Harkin) Obama +5.6
Kentucky Mitch McConnell Romney +22.7
Louisiana Mary Landreiu Romney +17.2
Michigan OPEN (Levin) Obama +9.5
Montana John Walsh Romney +13.5
New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen Obama +5.8
North Carolina Kay Hagan Romney +2.2
West Virginia OPEN (Rockefeller) Romney +26.8
Midwest and East
Iowa
Michigan
New Hampshire
West Virginia
Won by Romney
Alaska
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Montana
North Carolina
West Virginia
Tier 1
Colorado
Michigan
New Hampshire
North Carolina
West
Alaska
Colorado
Montana
South
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
North Carolina
Won by Obama
Colorado
Iowa
Michigan
New Hampshire
Tier 2
Alaska
Arkansas
Iowa
Louisiana
Tier 3
Georgia
Montana
Kentucky
West Virginia
Average margin:
Romney +8.5
Key Findings
There is an intensely Anti-Washington mood in the Senate battleground
Voters strongly negative towards Super PACs, believe spending in politics this year is worse
than the past and is very corrupting.
Overwhelming cross-partisan support of a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United
that can translate into added support for Democratic candidates who support the amendment
and damage Republicans who oppose it.
More than two-to-one support for plan to give public matching funds for small donations to
candidates who reject big donations. Support holds steady after balanced debate on the
proposal.
Republican candidates supporting RNC lawsuit to eliminate individual contribution limits put
themselves in danger of losing support.
Engaging in a debate about money in politics, when it includes push to overturn Citizens United,
moves the Senate Vote a net 5 points towards Democrats.
5
NPR/Resurgent Republic
June, 2014
26 24
68
70
Right direction Wrong Track Right direction Wrong Track
7
-42
Voters deeply unhappy with direction of country
-46
Generally speaking, do you think that things in this country are going in the right direction, or do you feel things have
gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?
WVWVAF
July, 2014
27 16 9 8 6 8 10
40 33 32
23 22 30 26
47 37 32 44
31 32
38
54 53 49 52 44 49 51
Very warm (75-100) Very cool (0-25)
Barack Obama
8
Mean: 41.1
Net: -14
Mean: 41.1
Net: -20
Mean: 38.9
Net: -25
Mean: 32.5
Net: -29
Mean: 38.0
Net: -22
Mitch McConnell
Democratic Party
Harry Reid Republican
Party
Now, I'd like to rate your feelings toward some people and organizations, with one hundred meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; zero meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold.
Republicans and Democrats at Parity. House Republicans Very Unpopular, Bigger Driver of Vote than Senate Republicans
Mean: 42.0
Net: -17
Mean: 35.2
Net: -19
Republicans in Senate
Republican in House
20
43
29
43
Approve Disapprove
Strongly approve Strongly disapprove
Split approval for incumbents Senators in Battleground
9
Do you approve or disapprove of the way (SENATE INCUMBENT) is handling his/her job as a member of the U.S. Senate?
-
All Incumbents
50 63
47 37
65 75
64 54
13 9 14 17
30 21
31 41
Voters feel current wave of spending in battleground is wrong and favors wealthy – and not politics as usual
11
Spending all of this money on elections is wrong and leads to our elected officials representing the views of wealthy donors who finance super PACs instead of representing all of us.
As you may know, outside groups called Super PACS have already spent 77 million dollars on advertising trying to influence the Senate elections in November. Thinking about this, I want you to tell me which comes closer to your point of view, even if neither is exactly right:
There has always been a lot of money in politics, and this spending is nothing new. It is just the way campaigns are run today.
+35 +54 +33 +13
Democrats Independents Republicans Total
39 33 43
3
55 47
61
7
19 9 11
38 22 14 18
46
Very warm (75-100) Very cool (0-25)
Voters favorable about plan to reform campaign spending. Intense dislike of Super PACs
Now, I'd like to rate your feelings toward some people and organizations, with one hundred meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; zero meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold.
12
Mean: 62.4
Net: +33
A plan to overhaul campaign spending by
getting rid of big donations and allowing only small donations to candidates, matched by
taxpayer funds
Mean: 67.4
Net: +33
Mean: 67.7
Net: +43
Every Voice, an organization that is trying to reduce the
influence of big money in politics.
An organization that is trying to reduce the
influence of big money in politics.
Mean: 25.6
Net: -39
Super PACs
Constitutional amendment to limit what outside groups, corporations, unions and the wealthy win overwhelming support
13
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled to allow outside groups, corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence an election, much of which happens without any disclosure of the names of the individuals spending the money. Some in Congress have proposed a new Constitutional Amendment to overturn this ruling and allow Congress to place limits on the amount of money these groups can spend to influence elections. Based on what you know, do you favor or oppose this proposed Constitutional Amendment?
53 52 53
73 73 73
14 16 14
24 25 24
Favor Oppose Favor Oppose Favor Oppose
Strongly favor Strongly oppose
Obama Seats Romney Seats
+49 +49
Total
+48
30
55
28 10
48
71
51
23
9 8 16 11
5 9
20
More likely Less likely More likely Less likely More likely Less likely More likely Less likely
Much less likely Much more likely
14
Candidate that embraces amendment to give power back to regular citizens wins huge support with Democrats and independents
I am going to read you a statement from (Democratic candidate) and I want you to tell me whether (Democratic
candidate)'s position makes you more or less likely to support (him/her), or if it makes no difference.?
Democrats Independents Republicans Total
+37 +66 +43 +3
The Supreme Court's decision has allowed big corporations and special interests to spend hundreds of millions in secret money to try to buy elections, taking power away from regular citizens. That's why I am supporting a Constitutional Amendment to overturn this ruling and put our government back in the hands of ordinary Americans.
31
36
58
66
Best critique on Republicans for opposing amendment focuses on taking away power from average voters
15
BUYING ELECTION TO ADVANCE BILLIONAIRE’S AGENDA (Republican candidate) opposes limits on how much out-of-state billionaires can spend, and now those billionaires are spending millions of dollars to elect (him/her) to the Senate to support their agenda. This is a corrupt system that replaces our voter's needs with special interest goals like tax breaks for millionaires, cuts to Medicare benefits, and privatizing social security.
UNLIMITED MONEY TAKES POWER AWAY FROM REGULAR PEOPLE (Republican candidate) supports the Supreme Court's decision to allow wealthy special interests and big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of secret money to buy elections, taking the power away from regular citizens and putting it in the hands of just a few billionaires.
Now, I am going to read you some things about Republicans like (Republican candidate) who SUPPORT the Supreme Court ruling. Does that raise very serious doubts, serious doubts, minor doubts or no real doubts in your own mind about (the Republican Candidate)?
33 34 32
66 68 65
16 14 16
27 26 27
Favor Oppose Favor Oppose Favor Oppose
Strongly favor Strongly oppose
And critically, matching small contributions with public funds gets strong public support in both Obama and Romney battleground states
16
Under this proposal, Senate candidates would collect a large number of small contributions from individuals in their home states, and these contributions would be matched on a six-to-one basis by public funds. Anyone making a small donation would get a refundable tax credit of twenty-five dollars. Each candidate's public funding would be strictly capped at a certain amount, and all donations would be limited and disclosed. From what you know, would you favor or oppose this proposal?
Obama Seats Romney Seats
+42 +38
Total
+39
Now let me tell you more about another proposal that directly changes the way Senate campaigns are financed.
43 58
40 31
59 70
56 50
22 17 24 26
33 25
34 39
Reform advocates win the public debate – even when attacked as ‘welfare for politicians’ with taxpayer money
17
We need a government of, by and for the people - not government bought and paid for by wealthy donors. It's time we let big donors and private companies pay their fair share of taxes, rather than paying for politicians who will write them special tax breaks. By replacing large contributions from CEOs, PACs, and lobbyists with small contributions from everyday Americans and limited public funds, we'll make every voice count in Washington.
Now I'd like to read two statements about this proposal. Please tell me which comes closer to your point of view, even if neither is exactly right:
Paying for elections with tax dollars is just welfare for politicians. It means politicians will use billions of our taxpayer dollars to fund their campaigns instead of other important issues. Tax money will go to bumper stickers, yard signs, and even negative attacks, and the proposal would require a costly bureaucracy to police our speech. It leaves the super PACs alone, which means it won't really clean up politics. This is not a good use of our tax dollars.
Democrats Independents Republicans Total
+26 +45 +22 +11
6 4 9
13 12 16
23 26 18
34 35 32
More likely Less likely More likely Less likely More likely Less likely
Much more likely Much less likely
Support for RNC lawsuit to overturn individual contribution limits could results in some electoral damage
18
Recently, the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit to attempt to eliminate limits on how much money wealthy individuals can give to political parties, which is currently capped at 32,400 dollars per individual per election cycle. If you found out that (Republican candidate) supported eliminating these contribution limits, would that make you more or less likely to support (Republican candidate) or does it make no difference?
Dem Incumbent Seats Open Seats Total
5 3 10 7
13 18 42
17 9
53
31
17
More likely Less likely More likely Less likely More likely Less likely
Much more likely Much less likely No difference
Lawsuit endangers Independent and Republican voters
19
Recently, the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit to attempt to eliminate limits on how much money wealthy individuals can give to political parties, which is currently capped at 32,400 dollars per individual per election cycle. If you found out that (Republican candidate) supported eliminating these contribution limits, would that make you more or less likely to support (Republican candidate) or does it make no difference?
Independents Republicans Democrats
47 47 48 50 47 46 46
43
Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep
Democrat Republican
I know it's a long way off, but thinking about the election for Congress in 2014, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for – the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate?
Battling special interest money, including constitutional amendment has big impact
Message vote
Movement: Full Sample
+2 +7
Final vote
Movement: Half Sample with Citizens Amendment + Finance Reform
Message vote
Final vote
- +1
Note: the entire sample heard the debate over campaign spending reform. ½ heard the debate on Citizens United 20
Biggest shifts come with key groups
21
5
11 9 8 8 8 8 7
Total Ind Women Gen X Independents Open Seats YoungerVoters
ModerateRepublicans
Non-ColWomen
I know it's a long way off, but thinking about the election for Congress in 2014, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for – the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate?
Net Change in Vote after Hearing Citizens Constitutional Amendment and Public Funding Proposal
EUROPEAN HEADQUARTERS 405 Carrington House 6 Hertford Street London, UK W1J 7SU T: +44.(0).207.096.5070 F: +44.(0).207.096.5068
WORLD HEADQUARTERS 10 G Street, NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 T: 202.478.8300 F: 202.478.8301
LATIN AMERICAN HEADQUARTERS Cabrera 6060, 7D C1414 BHN Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina T: +54.11.4772.0813
www.greenbergresearch.com | www.gqrr.com
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 41 East 11 Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10003 T: 212.231.0050