Netroots Nation

Post-Election Presentation

November 6th, 2010

TUESDAY
 Democrats sweep statewide.

California Statewide Races

Dem
Democrat Other Republican Win

Governor 53 5 41 +12
Lieutenant Governor 50 10 40 +10
Secretary of State 54 8 38 +16
Controller 55 9 37 +18
Treasurer 56 7 37 +19
Attorney General 46 8 46 -
Insurance Commissioner 50 12 38 +12
Senator 52 5 43 +9

0% 100%

*Data from Secretary of State. 3

 Brown wins by 13%, nearly one million votes.

Gubernatorial Race
54

+ 950,984
Votes 41

4,250,065 3,299,081

Jerry Brown Meg Whitman

*Data from Secretary of State 4

A cautionary
tale
 Early October, Costa held comfortable margin
over Vidak.

October 1st Poll: Congressional District 20

54

36

Jim Costa Andy Vidak

*Data from David Binder Research. 6

 Costa was viewed favorably, while Pelosi was
not.

October 1st Poll: Congressional District 20

52 Favorable Unfavorable
48

37 35
28

10
25 22 14 6 18 38

Jim Costa Andy Vidak Nancy Pelosi

*Data from David Binder Research. 7

American Crossroads and groups like it spend over
$800,000

8
 Costa lost support from Independent and Republican
women.

Congressional District 20
Republican Women Independent Women Overall
18
20
10 15
0 -3
-10 October 1st October 26th
-20 -28
-30 -34
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90 -84

*Data from David Binder Research and Secretary of State. 9

 Today, Costa trails.

Congressional District 20
Costa Vidak
60 54
50 47 50.9
49.1
40 36 44

30

20

10

0
October 1st October 26th Election Day

*Data from David Binder Research and Secretary of State. 10

How did Brown
win?
Whitman began in a strong position

She had three huge assets:

1. Enormous cash advantage.

2. Early lead in the polls.
3. An appeal to women.

12
 Whitman spent $135+ million MORE than Brown.

Campaign Spending Through October 16th

$160,092,822

$24,843,297

Brown Whitman
*Data from Secretary of State 13
 More than 8 times as much per vote.

Campaign Spending Per Vote Through October 16th

$48.53

$5.85

Brown Whitman
*Data from Secretary of State 14
 Whitman’s early lead resembled Arnold’s from four years ago.

Democrat Republican

+4 +3
44 43 46
40

April 2006 March 2010

*Data from Field Poll 15

 Women liked Whitman.

Qualitative research indicated Whitman was appealing to

women.

They liked that she was not a career politician.

They were proud of her success as a businesswoman.

They hoped her business experience could help California
solve its budget crisis.

They viewed her as accessible and caring.

They thought she had a plan with creative ideas to move
California forward.

*Data from David Binder Research. 16

 Women liked Whitman.

Some said they would vote for her.

Even more wanted to hear from her.

They defended her against criticisms.

*Data from David Binder Research. 17

So why not…
Reason #1:

SUMMER

After winning the primary, Whitman has 112 days of
television advertising without response from the
Brown campaign.

But independent expenditures stepped in with

targeted communications to key constituencies.

The result…

20
 Over the summer, Brown remained stable.

Brown Favorability
Favorable Unfavorable
50 45 44
40 42 43 42
41

30

20

10

0
June 24th August 1st September 1st

*Data from David Binder Research. 21

 While voters began to question Whitman.

Whitman Favorability
Favorable Unfavorable
50
43 43 42 44
40
40 38
30

20

10

0
June 24th August 1st September 1st

*Data from David Binder Research. 22

 Whitman could not build a lead...

Vote for Governor

Brown Whitman
50 46 47 46
45 45
40 43

30

20

10

0
June 24th August 1st September 1st

*Data from David Binder Research. 23

 …like Schwarzenegger did four years before.
60
2006

44 46 45
39
40
39 40 39 37
Angelides Schwarzenegger
20
60
Feb* Mar Apr* May* Jun Jul*
2010
46 47 47
46
45 45 46
40 43
Brown Whitman

20
Feb Mar* Apr May Jun Jul

*Data from Field Poll and David Binder Research. 24

 By Labor Day, Brown led on trust and was seen as just as risky as
Whitman and less able to fix the economy.

September 1st: Governor Traits

Brown
Whitman No Opinion Brown Adv.

Is someone I trust 34 28 38 +4

Is a risky choice for Governor 40 20 40 0

Understands how to fix the

economy
46 24 30 -16

0% 100%

*Data from David Binder Research. 25

 Despite her promising start, Whitman could not build support
among women.

Women for Brown Women for Whitman

50 46 47
45 46 46
42 42
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
June 24th August 1st September 1st

*Data from David Binder Research. 26

However, she did narrow the margin with Latinos.

Vote by Ethnicity
Latinos for Brown Latinos for Whitman
70
63
59
60
50 51
40
37
30
32
20 25
10
0
June 24th August 1st September 1st

27
Whitman’s attacks created concern that Latino
Democrats may just not vote.

Democratic Enthusiasm About Voting: 6 to 10 on 0 to 10 Scale

White Democrats Latino Democrats
90 87
81
80 76 75 78

70 69

60

50
June 24th August 1st September 1st

28
Reason #2:

FALL
IEs targeted key constituencies and showed how Brown would
be better for voters than Whitman.

1. Undecideds moved towards Brown.

2. Whitman never built a lead among women.

3. Latinos became part of Brown’s base and voted in large

numbers.

4. Working-class voters in the Central Valley and other key areas

of the state move to Brown.

5. Asians moved to Brown.

30
 After Labor Day, Whitman falls behind and never recovers.

Brown Whitman
60
53 54
50 45 46
43 47
40 36 41
38 38
30

20

10

0
September 1st September 28th October 17th October 29th Election Day

*Data from David Binder Research and Secretary of State. 31

 Four years earlier, it was Angelides who never recovered.

60
2006 56
49
44 46 45 44
39
40 39
39 40 39 37
34 33
Angelides Schwarzenegger
20
60
Feb* Mar Apr* May* Jun Jul* Aug Sep* Oct* E-Day
2010 54
46 47 47
46 46 47
46 45
45 45 43 41
40 43
36 38
Brown Whitman

20
Feb Mar* Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct E-Day

*Data from Field Poll, David Binder Research, and Secretary of State 32
 This time, voters are educated about the risk that Whitman
would pose for California.

Whitman Favorability
Favorable Unfavorable
60

50 52
44 42
43 47
40 38
39 38
30

20

10

0
September 1st September 28th October 17th October 29th

*Data from David Binder Research. 33

 As voters are re-introduced to Brown, they start to like him.

Brown Favorability
Favorable Unfavorable
50 49 50
47
42
41
39 42 42
40

30

20

10

0
September 1st September 28th October 17th October 29th

*Data from David Binder Research. 34

 By Election Day, voters recognize that Brown better understands
how to fix the economy, and how to fix state government.

Brown Advantage

Is someone I trust
Understands how to fix the economy
20
[NOT] Is a risky choice for Governor
15
10
5
0
September 1st September 28th October 17th October 29th
-5
-10
-15
-20

*Data from David Binder Research. 35

 Whitman failed to build a base among women. By Election Day,
Brown led women by 16.

Vote by Gender
Women for Brown Women for Whitman
60 54
50 55
50 46 49

40 39
42
30 37 35
33
20

10

0
September 1st September 28th October 17th October 29th Election Day

*Data from David Binder Research and Exit Poll. 36

Latinos
 The housekeeper scandal and Cambiando more than
doubled Brown’s lead among Latinos, from 14 to 34.

Vote by Ethnicity
Latinos for Brown Latinos for Whitman
70 64
60
60 55
51 49
50
40
30 37 30
28
20 25
Housekeeper
21
10 Scandal

0
September 1st September 28th October 17th October 29th Election Day
Cambiando
Ads Start

*Data from David Binder Research and Exit Poll. 38

 Cambiando and the Housekeeper Scandal also generated
interest in the race among Latinos.

Democratic Enthusiasm About Voting: 6 to 10 on 0 to 10 Scale

White Democrats Latino Democrats
90

82 83
80 78 79
79
78 77

70 69
Housekeeper
Scandal

60
September 1st September 28th October 17th October 29th
Cambiando
Ads Start

*Data from David Binder Research. 39

 Despite early concerns, Latinos were a GREATER proportion of
the electorate than in the last two elections.

Latino Turnout as a Proportion of Total Turnout

22
19
18

2006 2008 2010

*Data from Exit Polls 40
Asian Americans
Asian Americans: A Million More Voters Case Study

Million More Voters identified 2.8 million target

voters.

Asian Americans are more than twice as likely to be

targets.

MMV invests in understanding Asian Americans and

Pacific Islanders.

42
MMV learns:

There is wide diversity between ethnicities.

Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese are particularly likely to

be undecided.

They receive little information about California politics.

The MAJORITY do not speak English.

Different messengers and media are effective.

43
 The proportion of Asian Americans voting Democratic increased
more than any other demographic subgroup since 2006: an
increase of +42.

Democrat Republican
+25 62 +17
55

37 38

2006 2010

*Data from Exit Polls 44

SO HOW DID
WE GET HERE?

Over the summer, labor-supported IEs kept the race close by
damaging Whitman’s credibility, and preventing her from
developing a base among women.

Through the fall, targets were identified and educated about the
risks to them if Whitman won. Voters moved to Brown, including:

Whitman prevented from developing a base among women;

Latinos moved to Brown and turned out to vote;

Key persuasion targets like Asian Americans identified and
educating them about the risks that Whitman would pose;

Massive field program from labor-supported IEs boost turnout.

46
 Questions, please
contact
info@db-research.com