Tabulations From A Survey of California Registered Voters About State Budget Issues For Its California Budget Challenge Internet Tool

FIELD
RESEARCH
CORPORATION
FOUNDED IN 1945 BY MERVIN FIELD
601 California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, California 94108 415-392-5763
Tabulations From a Survey of California Registered Voters about

State Budget Issues for its California Budget Challenge Internet Tool
- prepared for Next10
February 2012
Introduction
This volume presents the statistical data developed from a survey of registered voters in California about their views of state budget matters.
The survey was conducted on behalf of Next10 to accompany the launching of it latest iteration of its California Budget Challenge Internet tool,
that enables the public to weigh in on how they would balance the state budget. The survey was completed among a representative sample of
1,003 registered voters in California conducted by telephone in English and Spanish February 2-18, 2011.
Sampling
The sample was developed from telephone listings of individual voters selected randomly from a listing of statewide voter registration rolls.
Once a voters name and telephone had been selected interviewers are attempted only with the specified voter. Interviews can be conducted on
either the voters landline or cell phone, depending on the source of the telephone listing from the voter file and the preference of the voter. In
this survey 784 interviewers were derived from landline sample listings and 219 from cell phone listings.
Prior to the start of data collection, professionally-trained telephone interviewers were briefed with regard to the surveys proper calling and
interviewing procedures by the Study Director. This session provided both interviewers and supervisors with an overview of the study and
includes a question-by-question review of all items in the survey. Interviewers then completed survey interviews by telephone through the
computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system. CATI controls the telephone scripts read to individual respondents by displaying the
appropriate questionnaire items and their valid response code alternatives in their proper sequence on computer screens at each interviewer's
booth. The interviewer then reads each question aloud to the respondent from the screen and enters each respondent's pre-coded answer category
through the keyboard directly to a computer disk. All answers are automatically stored in computer memory.
In order to bring hard-to-reach respondents into the survey, up to six attempts (an initial call plus five callbacks) were made to each telephone
number selected for inclusion into the sample. Callbacks were made at different times and on different days to increase the probability of finding
voters available for the interview. Where possible, appointments are made at specified dates and times to maximize convenience and
cooperation rates.
Data Processing
The data file resulting from CATI interviewing is itself virtually error-free. Even so, a final series of data checks were performed by means of a
specially designed cleaning program that scrutinizes each respondent record for internally inconsistent information. Once the data were
determined to be clean and error-free, the overall sample was weighted to align it to its proper statewide proportions by demographic
characteristics of the states registered voter population.
Guide to Reading the Tables

The following is an explanation of the detailed statistical tabulations contained in this report:
The question or questions upon which the data are based is shown at the top of each table
Tables are percentaged vertically with the raw percentage base appearing at the top of each column.
The data have been weighted to known parameters of the statewide registered voter population. All percentages and frequencies
reported in each table are therefore weighted tabulations.
In instances where percentages are calculated on small bases (e.g., when the base is fewer than 100 respondents) the reader is
urged to interpret the data with caution, since results are subject to larger levels of sampling error.
Throughout the tables an asterisk is used to denote a value of less than 1/2 of 1%. A hyphen indicates zero value. On some tables
the percentages may add to more than 100% due to multiple mentions.
Bases of subgroups used in the tabulations may add to less than the total number of respondents due to some respondents not
reporting that characteristic.
Subgroup Definitions
The following are some of the definitions applicable to some of the voter subgroups reported in this volume:
Area
Southern California:
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kern, and San
Luis Obispo counties
Northern California:
all other 48 California counties
Coastal Counties:
San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo,
San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Marin, Napa, Solano, Sonoma, Santa Clara, Mendocino, Humboldt and
Del Norte counties
Inland counties:
all other 38 California counties
Region
Los Angeles:
Los Angeles County
San Diego/Orange:
San Diego County and Orange counties
Other South:
San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo
SF Bay Area:
San Francisco, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo
Central Valley:
Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus,
Sutter, Tehema, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba
Other North:
Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Del Norte, El Dorado, Humboldt, Inyo, Lake, Lassen, Mariposa, Mendocino,
Monterey, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Plumas, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Siskiyou, Trinity, and Tuolumne
Estimates of Sampling Error

In any survey based on a sampling, there is some sampling error introduced into the data by the process of sampling itself. When the sample has
been drawn using random processes, it is possible to apply probability principles to determine the potential range of such error. While survey
samples of human populations rarely, if ever, meet all of the criteria theoretically required for the application of these principles, it is customary
to use them as an approximation of error that is introduced as a result of sampling. The table below shows the range of error that is associated
with samples of various sizes, assuming the use of the 95% confidence level, which is customary for most public opinion surveys. For example,
if 50% of the overall sample of 1,003 registered voters answered yes to a specific question, this statistic would have a sampling error of plus
or minus 3.1 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. This means that there is a 95% chance that had the overall population of registered
voters statewide been interviewed using the same questionnaire and methods, the results of such a census would yield a result between 46.9%
and 53.1%. The same procedure can be used to estimate the sample error ranges of any other statistic contained in this report.
Approximate percentage distribution of replies to question
Approximate
sample size
100
300
500
1000
10%
+/- 6.0
+/- 3.5
+/- 2.7
+/- 1.9
30%
+/- 9.2
+/- 5.3
+/- 4.1
+/- 2.9
50%
+/- 10.0
+/- 5.8
+/- 4.5
+/- 3.1
70%
+/- 9.2
+/- 5.3
+/- 4.1
+/- 2.9
90%
+/- 6.0
+/- 3.5
+/- 2.7
+/- 1.9
There are many other possible sources of error other than sampling variability in this and any other public opinion survey. Different results
could occur because of differences in question wording, sequencing, the rigor with which sampling procedures were implemented, or through
undetected errors or omissions in sampling, interviewing or data processing. The overall design and execution of the survey minimized the
potential for these other sources of error.
Questions Asked
Governor Brown and the state legislature have been dealing with a large accumulated state budget deficit, which last year totaled over 20
billion dollars. In 2011 lawmakers made a series of cuts to most areas of the state spending. However, current estimates are that the state
still faces a budget deficit of about 9 billion dollars next year, which is equal to about 10 percent of the states total general fund budget.
Which of the following best represents how you would like state lawmakers and the Governor to resolve the states current 9 billion dollar
deficit: 1) Solve the deficit mostly through additional spending cuts, 2) Solve the deficit mostly through tax increases; or 3) Solve the
deficit with about an equal mix of spending cuts and tax increases?
The states biggest area of spending is in k-12 public schools. Recognizing that the states budget deficit for next year is about 9
billion dollars, which of the following proposals do you favor most with regard to the budget for k-12 public schools: 1) Keep per
student spending at its current level, 2) Cut per student spending by 2.4 billion dollars, which might require a significant reduction in
the length of the school year or other comparable cuts, or, 3) Increase per student spending by 2.5 billion dollars?
The states biggest source of revenue comes from personal income taxes. Recognizing that the states budget deficit for next year is about
9 billion dollars, which of the following proposals do you favor most with regard to state personal income taxes in terms of the amount
raised and who pays: 1) Keep state personal income taxes at their current rates, 2) Increase income tax rates by one-quarter of 1 percent
on all wage earners, raising 2.5 billion dollars in additional revenues, 3) Increase income tax rates by one-half of 1 percent on individuals
making 250 thousand dollars or more, raising 3.5 billion dollars in additional revenues, or, 4) Increase income tax rates by 3 percent on
individuals making over $1 million a year, and 5 percent on individuals over $2 million a year, raising over 3.5 billion
dollars in additional revenues?
The states biggest source of revenue comes from personal income taxes. Recognizing that the states budget deficit for next year is
about 9 billion dollars, which of the following proposals do you favor most with regard to state personal income taxes in terms of the
amount raised and who pays: 1)Keep state personal income taxes at their current rates, 2)Increase income tax rates by one-quarter of
1 percent on all wage earners, raising 2.5 billion dollars in additional revenues, 3)Increase income tax rates by one-half of 1 percent
on individuals making 250 thousand dollars or more, raising 3.5 billion dollars in additional revenues, or, 4) Increase income tax
rates by 3 percent on individuals making over $1 million a year, and 5 percent on individuals over $2 million a year, raising over 3.5
billion dollars in additional revenues?
Since 2009 the state has made over 50 billion dollars in spending cuts from its annual budgets, including cuts to the k-12 public schools,
the University of California, the California State University, the community colleges, state health care and social service programs, and to
other state and local government services funded by the state. How much have you and your family have been affected: a lot, some, a
little, or not at all by these budget cuts?
21 Feb 2012
Q22.
Which of the following best represents how you would like state lawmakers and the Governor to resolve the state's
current 9 billion dollar deficit?
Base: Registered voters
Region
Area
----------------------- ----------------------------------North/South Coast/Inlnd
Cen----------- ----------San
S.F. tral
South North
InDiego/ Othr Bay
Val- Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South Area
ey
North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Party Regis.
Political ideology
----------------- ----------------------------Strng Mod. Mid.
Non- Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
Part/ serv- serv- the
lib- libDem
Rep
Other ative ative Road eral eral
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

600
403
720
283
258
182
143
205
165
49
437
304
262
189
132
435
99
148
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Solve the
316
deficit
31.5
mostly
through
additional
spending cuts
207
34.5
109
27.2
219
30.5
97
34.3
80
30.9
71
38.7
55
38.6
48
23.4
49
29.6
14
28.2
65
14.8
175
57.7
76
29.2
126
66.4
57
42.9
111
25.5
13
13.3
10
6.8
110
11.0
55
9.2
55
13.6
90
12.4
21
7.3
27
10.6
15
8.1
13
9.1
33
16.1
11
6.5
11
22.7
85
19.5
9
2.9
16
6.2
4
1.9
9
6.8
33
7.7
16
15.9
48
32.8
Solve the
524
deficit with 52.2
about an
equal mix of
spending cuts
and tax
increases
306
51.0
218
54.1
383
53.2
141
49.8
137
53.1
93
51.1
64
45.0
115
56.4
92
55.7
21
43.6
272
62.1
103
34.0
149
56.9
51
26.8
55
42.0
269
61.8
67
67.7
82
55.3
32
5.3
21
5.1
28
3.9
24
8.6
14
5.4
4
2.1
10
7.3
8
4.1
13
8.2
3
5.4
16
3.6
17
5.5
20
7.7
9
4.8
11
8.3
22
5.1
3
3.1
7
5.1
Solve the
deficit
mostly
through tax
increases
Don't know/no
opinion
53
5.2
Project #2012-001
Field Research Corporation
21 Feb 2012
Q22.
Gender
Age
----------- -----------------------------
Fe65 or
Total Male male 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 Older
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Health
Insurance
Age/Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Status
--------------------------------------------- ----------- Age 18-39
Age 40-64
White
----------- ----------nonNot
White
White
Hisp- LaAsian/ InInNon- Eth- Non- Ethanic tino Black Other sured sured Hisp. nic Hisp. nic
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

470
533
191
141
208
231
231
644
223
60
80
883
120
165
163
285
146
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Solve the
316
deficit
31.5
mostly
through
additional
spending cuts
173
36.9
143
26.8
46
23.8
45
32.1
70
33.5
81
35.0
75
32.3
224
34.8
55
24.6
16
27.4
19
23.4
285
32.3
31
26.0
54
32.8
34
21.0
106
37.1
43
29.6
Solve the
deficit
mostly
through tax
increases
110
11.0
52
11.1
58
10.9
27
13.9
15
10.5
28
13.6
21
9.2
19
8.3
80
12.5
16
7.1
6
9.3
7
8.2
98
11.1
12
10.0
31
18.8
10
6.0
34
12.0
14
9.6
Solve the
524
deficit with 52.2
about an
equal mix of
spending cuts
and tax
increases
225
47.8
299
56.1
108
56.5
81
57.5
104
50.3
118
51.0
112
48.5
303
47.1
144
64.3
36
59.0
47
59.0
454
51.5
69
57.7
75
45.3
114
70.1
135
47.4
82
56.3
20
4.3
33
6.1
11
5.8
5
2.5
11
4.9
25
10.9
36
5.6
9
4.0
3
4.3
8
9.4
45
5.1
8
6.4
5
3.1
5
2.9
10
3.5
6
4.4
Don't know/no
opinion
53
5.2
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Q22.
Education
----------------------H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
uate lege/ Col- Grador
Trade lege uate
Total less Sch'l Grad Work
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Union
Household Income
Status
Marital Status
----------------------------- ----------- ----------------MarLess
More
ried/
Than $20
$40
$60- Than Yes,
Live
$20K -40K -60K $100K $100K Any
No
Tgthr
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Separ
Divor
Wido
-wed
=====
Sample
Listing
Never ----------Mar- Land- Cellried
line phone
===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

145
346
267
235
128
163
164
229
237
216
780
607
148
239
741
262
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Solve the
316
deficit
31.5
mostly
through
additional
spending cuts
51
35.4
110
31.8
86
32.1
64
27.5
28
21.8
46
28.4
56
34.2
62
27.0
89
37.7
65
30.2
247
31.7
211
34.8
39
26.4
62
26.0
243
32.8
73
28.1
110
11.0
13
8.7
31
9.0
34
12.9
31
13.2
24
19.0
15
9.2
11
6.6
25
11.0
26
11.0
21
9.7
88
11.3
58
9.6
14
9.2
37
15.6
74
10.0
36
13.9
Solve the
524
deficit with 52.2
about an
equal mix of
spending cuts
and tax
increases
67
46.0
189
54.6
139
51.8
127
54.0
65
50.8
92
56.5
88
53.9
130
57.0
120
50.5
117
54.4
404
51.8
307
50.6
84
57.0
129
54.1
382
51.5
142
54.2
14
9.9
16
4.6
9
3.2
13
5.3
11
8.4
10
5.9
9
5.2
11
5.0
2
0.9
12
5.7
40
5.2
30
5.0
11
7.4
10
4.3
43
5.8
10
3.8
Solve the
deficit
mostly
through tax
increases
Don't know/no
opinion
53
5.2
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Q22.
Tea Party
Impacted by State
Brown Job
Religion
Born Again Identification
Budget Cuts
Rating
----------------------- ----------- ----------------- ----------------------- ----------Protestant/
Not
Not
DisOthr Cath- Othr No
At
A Lit At
ApapTotal Chrst olic Relig Pref. Yes
No
A lot Some All
A Lot Some
-tle All
prove prove
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Obama Re-elect
----------------------Not
Re-elect
Re-elect
----------- ----------Some- Somewhat/ what/
Stron Not
Not
Stron
-gly Strng strng -gly
===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

408
252
123
220
273
730
100
292
583
282
276
157
271
454
378
169
78
49
153
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Solve the
316
deficit
31.5
mostly
through
additional
spending cuts
162
39.8
72
28.8
31
24.9
51
23.1
112
40.9
205
28.0
77
76.2
135
46.0
97
16.6
67
23.6
76
27.5
52
33.3
115
42.5
72
15.8
191
50.7
11
6.8
7
8.8
19
39.2
99
65.0
110
11.0
30
7.5
21
8.5
13
10.9
45
20.5
15
5.4
96
13.1
2
1.7
7
2.5
99
17.0
53
18.6
28
10.1
16
10.2
13
4.8
81
17.8
17
4.5
43
25.3
10
12.4
2
3.8
5
3.1
Solve the
524
deficit with 52.2
about an
equal mix of
spending cuts
and tax
increases
190
46.6
146
57.8
73
59.6
115
52.1
128
47.0
395
54.2
17
17.0
138
47.3
358
61.4
147
52.2
165
59.9
83
53.0
123
45.6
292
64.2
141
37.3
109
64.8
59
76.0
27
55.4
41
27.0
25
6.1
12
4.9
6
4.6
10
4.3
18
6.7
34
4.7
5
5.1
12
4.2
29
5.0
16
5.5
7
2.5
6
3.5
19
7.2
10
2.1
28
7.5
5
3.1
2
2.8
1
1.7
8
4.9
Solve the
deficit
mostly
through tax
increases
Don't know/no
opinion
53
5.2
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Q23. The state's biggest area of spending is in k-12 public schools. Recognizing that the state's budget deficit for next year
is about 9 billion dollars, which of the following proposals do you favor most with regard to the budget for
k-12 public schools?
1) Keep per student spending at its current level
2) Cut per student spending by 2.4 billion dollars, which might require a significant reduction in the length of the school
year or other comparable cuts
3) Increase per student spending by 2.5 billion dollars
Region
Area
Cen----------- ----------San
S.F. tral
South North
InDiego/ Othr Bay
Val- Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South Area
ey
North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Party Regis.
Political ideology
----------------- ----------------------------Strng Mod. Mid.
Non- Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
lib- libDem
Rep
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

600
403
720
283
258
182
143
205
165
49
437
304
262
189
132
435
99
148
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep per
student
spending at
its current
level
412
41.1
251
41.8
161
40.0
288
39.9
125
44.0
115
44.8
70
38.2
61
42.8
74
36.3
72
43.7
19
38.5
171
39.1
123
40.5
118
45.0
74
38.9
60
45.3
191
43.9
41
41.7
46
31.2
Cut per
student
spending by
2.4 billion
dollars
168
16.8
105
17.5
63
15.7
115
16.0
53
18.9
33
12.7
37
20.2
32
22.6
32
15.9
28
17.1
6
11.2
49
11.1
81
26.5
39
15.0
64
33.6
20
14.8
61
13.9
12
12.0
13
8.6
Increase per
student
spending by
2.5 billion
dollars
305
30.4
176
29.4
129
31.9
231
32.1
74
26.2
84
32.7
46
25.2
41
28.5
73
35.8
46
27.5
15
30.6
168
38.5
64
21.2
73
27.7
34
17.9
33
24.9
128
29.5
32
32.6
78
52.7
Don't know/no 118

opinion
11.7
68
11.3
50
12.3
87
12.0
31
11.0
25
9.8
30
16.4
9
6.1
25
12.0
19
11.7
10
19.7
49
11.3
36
11.8
32
12.3
18
9.6
20
14.9
55
12.7
14
13.7
11
7.5
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Gender
Age
----------- -----------------------------
Fe65 or
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Health
Insurance
Age/Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Status
--------------------------------------------- ----------- Age 18-39
Age 40-64
White
----------- ----------nonNot
White
White
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

470
533
191
141
208
231
231
644
223
60
80
883
120
165
163
285
146
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep per
student
spending at
its current
level
412
41.1
177
37.6
235
44.2
93
48.5
60
42.2
84
40.3
88
37.9
88
38.1
256
39.7
104
46.6
28
46.0
29
36.3
361
40.8
51
42.8
69
41.9
81
49.6
114
39.9
57
39.2
Cut per
student
spending by
2.4 billion
dollars
168
16.8
110
23.3
59
11.1
29
15.1
22
15.4
32
15.4
46
19.7
40
17.2
109
16.9
32
14.3
9
14.8
18
22.9
148
16.8
20
16.6
27
16.2
24
14.7
49
17.1
27
18.3
Increase per
student
spending by
2.5 billion
dollars
305
30.4
129
27.4
176
33.1
56
29.1
47
33.0
74
35.6
71
30.7
58
25.0
197
30.6
60
27.0
23
38.4
27
33.3
272
30.8
33
27.8
55
33.7
45
27.9
93
32.7
48
32.6
Don't know/no 118

opinion
11.7
55
11.7
62
11.7
14
7.2
13
9.4
18
8.7
27
11.6
45
19.6
82
12.8
27
12.1
*
0.8
6
7.5
102
11.6
15
12.8
13
8.1
13
7.8
29
10.3
14
9.9
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Education
----------------------H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
Trade lege uate
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Union
Household Income
Status
Marital Status
----------------------------- ----------- ----------------MarLess
More
ried/
Than $20
$40
$60- Than Yes,
Live
$20K -40K -60K $100K $100K Any
No
Tgthr
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Separ
Divor
Wido
-wed
=====
Sample
Listing
line phone
===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

145
346
267
235
128
163
164
229
237
216
780
607
148
239
741
262
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep per
student
spending at
its current
level
412
41.1
67
46.0
147
42.6
116
43.3
77
32.8
57
44.2
61
37.7
72
44.1
99
43.4
94
39.7
103
47.6
305
39.1
254
41.8
48
32.6
108
45.2
311
42.0
101
38.5
Cut per
student
spending by
2.4 billion
dollars
168
16.8
20
13.9
57
16.5
47
17.7
44
18.7
14
11.3
31
19.0
33
20.3
37
16.2
43
18.1
38
17.4
130
16.6
106
17.5
17
11.6
43
17.9
123
16.6
46
17.4
Increase per
student
spending by
2.5 billion
dollars
305
30.4
34
23.4
98
28.3
76
28.3
96
40.9
42
32.9
43
26.3
38
23.3
74
32.3
77
32.3
53
24.7
250
32.1
182
30.0
48
32.1
73
30.5
215
29.0
90
34.5
Don't know/no 118

opinion
11.7
24
16.7
44
12.6
29
10.7
18
7.6
15
11.5
28
17.0
20
12.4
19
8.1
23
9.9
22
10.2
95
12.2
65
10.7
35
23.6
15
6.4
92
12.5
25
9.6
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Tea Party
Impacted by State
Brown Job
Religion
Budget Cuts
Rating
----------------------- ----------- ----------------- ----------------------- ----------Protestant/
Not
Not
At
A Lit At
No
A lot Some All
A Lot Some
-tle All
prove prove
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Obama Re-elect
----------------------Not
Re-elect
Re-elect
Stron Not
Not
Stron
===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

408
252
123
220
273
730
100
292
583
282
276
157
271
454
378
169
78
49
153
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep per
student
spending at
its current
level
412
41.1
171
41.9
109
43.1
49
40.1
83
37.7
125
45.9
287
39.3
35
35.2
129
44.0
237
40.6
106
37.5
132
47.7
69
43.8
100
36.9
185
40.7
157
41.7
60
35.4
43
56.0
27
55.9
60
39.6
Cut per
student
spending by
2.4 billion
dollars
168
16.8
69
16.9
49
19.7
20
16.0
30
13.7
48
17.6
120
16.5
38
37.6
63
21.4
65
11.2
26
9.2
39
14.0
28
17.9
73
27.0
54
11.9
95
25.2
19
11.4
5
5.8
11
22.9
40
26.5
Increase per
student
spending by
2.5 billion
dollars
305
30.4
121
29.6
69
27.4
44
36.0
71
32.2
71
26.0
234
32.1
15
15.2
60
20.3
226
38.7
129
45.8
75
27.3
43
27.6
57
21.0
169
37.1
82
21.8
73
43.1
23
29.7
4
9.1
30
20.0
Don't know/no 118

opinion
11.7
47
11.5
25
9.8
10
7.9
36
16.5
29
10.5
89
12.2
12
12.0
42
14.2
56
9.6
21
7.5
30
10.9
17
10.6
41
15.1
47
10.3
43
11.3
17
10.1
7
8.4
6
12.1
21
14.0
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Q24. The state's biggest source of revenue comes from personal income taxes. Recognizing that the state's budget deficit for
next year is about 9 billion dollars, which of the following proposals do you favor most with regard to state personal
income taxes in terms of the amount raised and who pays?
1) Keep state personal income taxes at their current rates
2) Increase income tax rates by one-quarter of 1 percent on all wage earners, raising 2.5 billion dollars in additional revenues
3) Increase income tax rates by one-half of 1 percent on individuals making 250 thousand dollars or more,
raising 3.5 billion dollars in additional revenues
4) Increase income tax rates by 3 percent on individuals making over $1 million a year, and 5 percent on individuals over
$2 million a year, raising over 3.5 billion dollars in additional revenues
Region
Area
Cen----------- ----------San
S.F. tral
South North
InDiego/ Othr Bay
Val- Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South Area
ey
North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Party Regis.
Political ideology
----------------- ----------------------------Strng Mod. Mid.
Non- Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
lib- libDem
Rep
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

600
403
720
283
258
182
143
205
165
49
437
304
262
189
132
435
99
148
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep state
200
personal
19.9
income taxes
at their
current rates
Increase
income tax
rates by onequarter of 1
percent on
all wage
earners
87
8.7
Project #2012-001
134
22.3
66
16.5
142
19.7
58
20.6
46
17.8
51
28.0
35
24.3
31
15.0
29
17.7
8
16.7
26
6.0
119
39.2
55
21.0
95
49.9
36
27.0
63
14.4
3
3.1
4
3.0
43
7.2
44
10.9
49
6.8
38
13.3
19
7.2
7
4.0
15
10.3
18
9.0
23
14.0
5
9.4
30
6.9
35
11.6
22
8.3
17
9.1
14
10.7
41
9.4
5
4.6
10
6.8
21 Feb 2012
Region
Area
Cen----------- ----------San
S.F. tral
South North
InDiego/ Othr Bay
Val- Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South Area
ey
North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Party Regis.
Political ideology
----------------- ----------------------------Strng Mod. Mid.
Non- Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
lib- libDem
Rep
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

600
403
720
283
258
182
143
205
165
49
437
304
262
189
132
435
99
148
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Increase
250
income tax
24.9
rates by onehalf of 1
percent on
individuals
making 250
thousand
dollars or
more
149
24.9
101
25.0
189
26.2
61
21.7
64
25.0
47
25.7
34
23.9
50
24.6
41
24.5
13
27.1
131
30.0
58
18.9
61
23.4
23
11.9
37
27.7
120
27.6
28
28.3
43
29.0
Increase
income tax
rates by 3
percent on
individuals
making over
$1 million a
year, and 5
percent on
individuals
over $2
million a
year
237
39.5
166
41.3
297
41.3
106
37.5
113
44.0
63
34.5
55
38.3
94
46.2
62
37.4
16
32.3
230
52.5
68
22.5
105
40.3
40
20.9
33
25.3
189
43.4
54
54.7
87
59.3
403
40.2
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Region
Area
Cen----------- ----------San
S.F. tral
South North
InDiego/ Othr Bay
Val- Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South Area
ey
North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Party Regis.
Political ideology
----------------- ----------------------------Strng Mod. Mid.
Non- Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
lib- libDem
Rep
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

600
403
720
283
258
182
143
205
165
49
437
304
262
189
132
435
99
148
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Don't know/no
opinion
63
6.2
Project #2012-001
37
6.1
26
6.4
43
6.0
20
6.9
15
6.0
14
7.8
5
3.2
11
5.2
11
6.4
7
14.5
20
4.6
24
7.9
18
7.0
16
8.2
12
9.3
23
5.2
9
9.3
3
2.0
21 Feb 2012
Gender
Age
----------- -----------------------------
Fe65 or
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Health
Insurance
Age/Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Status
--------------------------------------------- ----------- Age 18-39
Age 40-64
White
----------- ----------nonNot
White
White
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

470
533
191
141
208
231
231
644
223
60
80
883
120
165
163
285
146
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep state
200
personal
19.9
income taxes
at their
current rates
126
26.8
74
13.9
34
17.8
27
19.3
41
20.0
47
20.1
50
21.8
147
22.8
32
14.4
6
9.4
14
17.9
181
20.5
19
16.1
39
23.7
22
13.2
63
21.9
24
16.4
Increase
income tax
percent on
all wage
earners
53
11.2
34
6.4
15
8.1
11
8.1
23
11.1
21
8.9
16
7.1
57
8.8
20
9.1
5
7.9
6
7.4
79
9.0
8
6.2
12
7.1
15
9.3
31
11.0
11
7.8
87
8.7
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Gender
Age
----------- -----------------------------
Fe65 or
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Health
Insurance
Age/Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Status
--------------------------------------------- ----------- Age 18-39
Age 40-64
White
----------- ----------nonNot
White
White
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

470
533
191
141
208
231
231
644
223
60
80
883
120
165
163
285
146
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Increase
250
income tax
24.9
percent on
individuals
making 250
thousand
dollars or
more
Project #2012-001
88
18.7
162
30.5
40
21.1
36
25.6
63
30.2
56
24.4
55
23.6
167
25.9
51
23.0
15
24.4
19
24.2
217
24.6
33
27.2
39
24.0
37
22.8
81
28.4
37
25.4
21 Feb 2012
Gender
Age
----------- -----------------------------
Fe65 or
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Health
Insurance
Age/Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Status
--------------------------------------------- ----------- Age 18-39
Age 40-64
White
----------- ----------nonNot
White
White
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

470
533
191
141
208
231
231
644
223
60
80
883
120
165
163
285
146
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Increase
income tax
rates by 3
percent on
individuals
making over
$1 million a
year, and 5
percent on
individuals
over $2
million a
year
403
40.2
177
37.6
227
42.6
91
47.3
63
44.4
73
35.2
91
39.3
86
37.4
230
35.7
107
48.1
33
54.8
37
46.4
353
39.9
51
42.3
69
42.1
80
49.5
90
31.7
70
47.9
Don't know/no
opinion
63
6.2
27
5.7
36
6.7
11
5.7
4
2.6
7
3.6
17
7.3
23
10.2
44
6.9
12
5.4
2
3.4
3
4.1
53
6.0
10
8.2
5
3.1
8
5.2
20
7.1
4
2.5
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Education
----------------------H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
Trade lege uate
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Union
Household Income
Status
Marital Status
----------------------------- ----------- ----------------MarLess
More
ried/
Than $20
$40
$60- Than Yes,
Live
$20K -40K -60K $100K $100K Any
No
Tgthr
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Separ
Divor
Wido
-wed
=====
Sample
Listing
line phone
===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

145
346
267
235
128
163
164
229
237
216
780
607
148
239
741
262
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep state
200
personal
19.9
income taxes
at their
current rates
Increase
income tax
percent on
all wage
earners
87
8.7
Project #2012-001
28
19.0
69
19.9
57
21.4
45
19.0
23
18.2
29
17.5
31
19.0
47
20.7
53
22.4
32
14.7
166
21.3
128
21.1
23
15.6
47
19.8
158
21.3
42
16.0
12
8.0
25
7.3
26
9.6
22
9.5
5
3.6
7
4.0
18
11.0
23
10.2
31
12.9
28
13.1
59
7.5
53
8.7
12
8.4
19
8.1
66
8.9
21
8.0
21 Feb 2012
Education
----------------------H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
Trade lege uate
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Union
Household Income
Status
Marital Status
----------------------------- ----------- ----------------MarLess
More
ried/
Than $20
$40
$60- Than Yes,
Live
$20K -40K -60K $100K $100K Any
No
Tgthr
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Separ
Divor
Wido
-wed
=====
Sample
Listing
line phone
===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

145
346
267
235
128
163
164
229
237
216
780
607
148
239
741
262
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Increase
250
income tax
24.9
percent on
individuals
making 250
thousand
dollars or
more
Project #2012-001
27
18.4
95
27.5
64
24.1
63
26.8
28
22.0
41
25.0
44
27.1
72
31.3
52
21.9
56
25.8
194
24.9
161
26.6
42
28.2
46
19.3
183
24.7
67
25.7
21 Feb 2012
Education
----------------------H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
Trade lege uate
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Union
Household Income
Status
Marital Status
----------------------------- ----------- ----------------MarLess
More
ried/
Than $20
$40
$60- Than Yes,
Live
$20K -40K -60K $100K $100K Any
No
Tgthr
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Separ
Divor
Wido
-wed
=====
Sample
Listing
line phone
===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

145
346
267
235
128
163
164
229
237
216
780
607
148
239
741
262
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Increase
income tax
rates by 3
percent on
individuals
making over
$1 million a
year, and 5
percent on
individuals
over $2
million a
year
403
40.2
65
44.4
136
39.4
102
38.2
97
41.5
63
48.8
72
44.2
64
39.3
75
32.8
93
39.2
88
41.0
310
39.8
237
39.0
49
33.2
114
48.0
284
38.3
119
45.7
Don't know/no
opinion
63
6.2
15
10.2
20
5.9
18
6.7
8
3.2
9
7.4
15
9.3
6
3.5
11
5.0
8
3.6
12
5.4
50
6.5
28
4.6
22
14.7
12
4.9
50
6.8
12
4.7
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Tea Party
Impacted by State
Brown Job
Religion
Budget Cuts
Rating
----------------------- ----------- ----------------- ----------------------- ----------Protestant/
Not
Not
At
A Lit At
No
A lot Some All
A Lot Some
-tle All
prove prove
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Obama Re-elect
----------------------Not
Re-elect
Re-elect
Stron Not
Not
Stron
===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

408
252
123
220
273
730
100
292
583
282
276
157
271
454
378
169
78
49
153
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep state
200
personal
19.9
income taxes
at their
current rates
101
24.7
42
16.6
22
17.6
36
16.3
65
23.7
135
18.5
55
54.3
91
31.0
51
8.7
33
11.6
43
15.7
39
24.8
82
30.4
36
8.0
132
35.0
3
1.6
4
4.8
13
27.3
67
44.1
Increase
income tax
percent on
all wage
earners
42
10.2
28
11.0
8
6.5
10
4.3
30
11.1
56
7.7
6
6.5
41
14.0
37
6.4
19
6.8
26
9.3
20
12.8
22
8.2
48
10.6
31
8.1
2
1.4
6
7.8
10
21.5
16
10.7
87
8.7
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Tea Party
Impacted by State
Brown Job
Religion
Budget Cuts
Rating
----------------------- ----------- ----------------- ----------------------- ----------Protestant/
Not
Not
At
A Lit At
No
A lot Some All
A Lot Some
-tle All
prove prove
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Obama Re-elect
----------------------Not
Re-elect
Re-elect
Stron Not
Not
Stron
===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

408
252
123
220
273
730
100
292
583
282
276
157
271
454
378
169
78
49
153
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Increase
250
income tax
24.9
percent on
individuals
making 250
thousand
dollars or
more
Project #2012-001
105
25.9
55
21.8
41
33.1
49
22.2
71
26.0
179
24.5
11
10.9
57
19.4
177
30.4
76
26.9
80
28.9
45
28.9
49
18.1
139
30.7
77
20.5
51
29.9
26
33.6
15
30.2
24
16.0
21 Feb 2012
Tea Party
Impacted by State
Brown Job
Religion
Budget Cuts
Rating
----------------------- ----------- ----------------- ----------------------- ----------Protestant/
Not
Not
At
A Lit At
No
A lot Some All
A Lot Some
-tle All
prove prove
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Obama Re-elect
----------------------Not
Re-elect
Re-elect
Stron Not
Not
Stron
===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

408
252
123
220
273
730
100
292
583
282
276
157
271
454
378
169
78
49
153
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Increase
income tax
rates by 3
percent on
individuals
making over
$1 million a
year, and 5
percent on
individuals
over $2
million a
year
403
40.2
136
33.3
107
42.4
48
39.4
112
51.0
88
32.2
315
43.2
19
18.5
87
29.7
288
49.3
138
48.8
116
42.2
49
31.3
92
34.1
212
46.6
111
29.4
106
62.9
37
47.4
10
21.0
30
19.6
Don't know/no
opinion
63
6.2
24
5.9
21
8.2
4
3.5
13
6.1
19
6.9
44
6.0
10
9.8
17
5.9
30
5.2
16
5.8
11
4.1
3
2.2
25
9.2
19
4.1
27
7.1
7
4.2
5
6.4
15
9.7
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Q25. The state's second largest source of revenue comes from state sales taxes. Recognizing that the state's budget deficit
for next year is about 9 billion dollars, which of the following proposals do you favor most with regard to
state sales taxes?
Region
Area
Cen----------- ----------San
S.F. tral
South North
InDiego/ Othr Bay
Val- Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South Area
ey
North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Party Regis.
Political ideology
----------------- ----------------------------Strng Mod. Mid.
Non- Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
lib- libDem
Rep
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

600
403
720
283
258
182
143
205
165
49
437
304
262
189
132
435
99
148
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep state
392
sales taxes
39.0
at their
current rates
252
42.0
140
34.6
286
39.7
106
37.4
102
39.7
91
49.7
53
37.3
65
31.5
62
37.3
19
38.5
123
28.1
161
53.0
107
41.0
120
63.1
56
42.2
147
33.8
36
36.2
34
22.8
Increase the
state sales
tax by onehalf cent,
raising 2.5
billion
dollars in
additional
revenues
251
25.0
137
22.8
114
28.3
173
24.1
77
27.3
52
20.3
37
20.5
42
29.0
63
30.6
46
27.9
10
21.2
128
29.3
63
20.6
60
23.0
36
19.0
24
18.1
122
28.1
20
20.0
49
33.0
Extend the
297
state sales
29.6
tax to some
services that
are not
currently
taxed,
raising 2.5
billion
dollars in
additional
revenues
176
29.4
121
30.0
215
29.8
82
29.0
85
33.1
45
24.4
43
29.9
65
31.6
46
27.9
13
27.3
164
37.5
55
18.1
78
29.8
21
11.0
37
28.3
147
33.7
37
36.9
55
37.6
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
state sales taxes?
Region
Area
Cen----------- ----------San
S.F. tral
South North
InDiego/ Othr Bay
Val- Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South Area
ey
North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Party Regis.
Political ideology
----------------- ----------------------------Strng Mod. Mid.
Non- Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
lib- libDem
Rep
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

600
403
720
283
258
182
143
205
165
49
437
304
262
189
132
435
99
148
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Don't know/no
opinion
64
6.4
Project #2012-001
35
5.8
29
7.1
46
6.4
18
6.3
18
6.9
10
5.4
5
3.7
13
6.3
11
6.9
6
13.0
22
5.1
25
8.3
16
6.2
13
6.9
15
11.4
19
4.4
7
6.9
10
6.7
21 Feb 2012
state sales taxes?
Gender
Age
----------- -----------------------------
Fe65 or
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Health
Insurance
Age/Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Status
--------------------------------------------- ----------- Age 18-39
Age 40-64
White
----------- ----------nonNot
White
White
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

470
533
191
141
208
231
231
644
223
60
80
883
120
165
163
285
146
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep state
392
sales taxes
39.0
at their
current rates
204
43.4
187
35.2
68
35.5
48
33.7
84
40.4
102
44.1
90
38.9
278
43.1
68
30.4
16
26.9
29
36.3
350
39.7
41
34.3
67
40.9
45
27.5
132
46.4
50
34.3
Increase the
state sales
raising 2.5
billion
dollars in
additional
revenues
251
25.0
112
23.7
139
26.1
40
20.8
38
26.6
52
25.0
60
25.9
61
26.6
167
25.9
51
22.8
11
18.8
25
31.6
216
24.5
35
28.7
40
24.1
37
22.8
76
26.5
34
23.5
Extend the
297
state sales
29.6
tax to some
services that
are not
currently
taxed,
raising 2.5
billion
dollars in
additional
revenues
125
26.5
172
32.4
72
37.4
51
36.4
63
30.4
55
23.8
56
24.1
154
23.9
93
41.7
28
46.2
23
28.3
259
29.4
38
31.2
46
28.0
77
47.4
63
22.2
54
37.0
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
state sales taxes?
Gender
Age
----------- -----------------------------
Fe65 or
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Health
Insurance
Age/Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Status
--------------------------------------------- ----------- Age 18-39
Age 40-64
White
----------- ----------nonNot
White
White
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

470
533
191
141
208
231
231
644
223
60
80
883
120
165
163
285
146
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Don't know/no
opinion
64
6.4
Project #2012-001
30
6.4
34
6.3
12
6.2
5
3.3
9
4.2
15
6.3
24
10.4
45
7.0
11
5.1
5
8.1
3
3.8
57
6.4
7
5.8
12
7.0
4
2.3
14
5.0
8
5.3
21 Feb 2012
state sales taxes?
Education
----------------------H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
Trade lege uate
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Union
Household Income
Status
Marital Status
----------------------------- ----------- ----------------MarLess
More
ried/
Than $20
$40
$60- Than Yes,
Live
$20K -40K -60K $100K $100K Any
No
Tgthr
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Separ
Divor
Wido
-wed
=====
Sample
Listing
line phone
===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

145
346
267
235
128
163
164
229
237
216
780
607
148
239
741
262
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep state
392
sales taxes
39.0
at their
current rates
57
38.9
121
35.0
113
42.1
96
41.0
47
36.7
64
39.5
63
38.4
87
38.2
101
42.5
83
38.6
303
38.8
247
40.8
52
35.3
88
36.9
293
39.5
99
37.7
Increase the
state sales
raising 2.5
billion
dollars in
additional
revenues
251
25.0
32
22.1
94
27.3
64
23.8
60
25.6
28
21.6
35
21.6
44
26.9
63
27.6
64
26.9
68
31.6
182
23.3
156
25.8
37
25.2
54
22.7
185
24.9
66
25.2
Extend the
297
state sales
29.6
tax to some
services that
are not
currently
taxed,
raising 2.5
billion
dollars in
additional
revenues
44
30.3
112
32.3
77
28.6
62
26.5
41
32.1
54
32.9
47
28.4
69
30.0
61
25.8
56
26.0
240
30.8
170
28.1
42
28.1
84
35.1
213
28.8
84
32.0
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
state sales taxes?
Education
----------------------H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
Trade lege uate
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Union
Household Income
Status
Marital Status
----------------------------- ----------- ----------------MarLess
More
ried/
Than $20
$40
$60- Than Yes,
Live
$20K -40K -60K $100K $100K Any
No
Tgthr
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Separ
Divor
Wido
-wed
=====
Sample
Listing
line phone
===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

145
346
267
235
128
163
164
229
237
216
780
607
148
239
741
262
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Don't know/no
opinion
64
6.4
Project #2012-001
13
8.7
19
5.4
14
5.4
16
6.9
12
9.5
10
6.0
10
6.3
10
4.2
11
4.8
8
3.8
55
7.1
33
5.4
17
11.4
13
5.3
50
6.8
13
5.1
21 Feb 2012
state sales taxes?
Tea Party
Impacted by State
Brown Job
Religion
Budget Cuts
Rating
----------------------- ----------- ----------------- ----------------------- ----------Protestant/
Not
Not
At
A Lit At
No
A lot Some All
A Lot Some
-tle All
prove prove
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Obama Re-elect
----------------------Not
Re-elect
Re-elect
Stron Not
Not
Stron
===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

408
252
123
220
273
730
100
292
583
282
276
157
271
454
378
169
78
49
153
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Keep state
392
sales taxes
39.0
at their
current rates
175
42.9
87
34.4
54
44.1
76
34.4
115
42.1
277
37.9
68
68.0
134
45.7
179
30.7
93
32.9
111
40.3
56
35.7
127
47.0
117
25.8
198
52.3
36
21.4
16
21.0
20
41.6
103
67.5
Increase the
state sales
raising 2.5
billion
dollars in
additional
revenues
103
25.2
60
23.9
29
23.5
59
26.8
73
26.9
177
24.3
17
17.3
60
20.6
165
28.3
81
28.8
61
22.0
44
28.1
64
23.6
142
31.3
70
18.5
60
35.4
21
27.4
10
20.3
22
14.6
251
25.0
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
state sales taxes?
Tea Party
Impacted by State
Brown Job
Religion
Budget Cuts
Rating
----------------------- ----------- ----------------- ----------------------- ----------Protestant/
Not
Not
At
A Lit At
No
A lot Some All
A Lot Some
-tle All
prove prove
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Obama Re-elect
----------------------Not
Re-elect
Re-elect
Stron Not
Not
Stron
===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

408
252
123
220
273
730
100
292
583
282
276
157
271
454
378
169
78
49
153
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Extend the
297
state sales
29.6
tax to some
services that
are not
currently
taxed,
raising 2.5
billion
dollars in
additional
revenues
Don't know/no
opinion
64
6.4
Project #2012-001
103
25.3
93
36.9
35
28.8
65
29.7
69
25.2
228
31.3
8
8.3
85
29.0
201
34.5
92
32.5
90
32.7
49
31.6
59
21.9
171
37.6
82
21.7
62
36.7
35
44.9
18
36.1
19
12.5
27
6.7
12
4.8
4
3.5
20
9.1
16
5.8
48
6.6
6
6.4
14
4.7
37
6.4
16
5.8
14
5.0
7
4.6
20
7.4
24
5.3
29
7.6
11
6.5
5
6.7
1
1.9
8
5.4
21 Feb 2012
Q26. Since 2009 the state has made over 50 billion dollars in spending cuts from its annual budgets, including cuts to the
k-12 public schools, the University of California, the California State University, the community colleges,
state health care and social service programs, and to other state and local government services funded by the state.
How much have you and your family have been affected: a lot, some, a little, or not at all by these budget cuts?
Region
Area
Cen----------- ----------San
S.F. tral
South North
InDiego/ Othr Bay
Val- Other
Total Cal
Cal
Coast land LA
Ornge South Area
ey
North
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Party Regis.
Political ideology
----------------- ----------------------------Strng Mod. Mid.
Non- Con- Con- of
Mod. Strng
lib- libDem
Rep
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

600
403
720
283
258
182
143
205
165
49
437
304
262
189
132
435
99
148
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
A lot/Some/A
little (net)
715
71.3
414
69.0
301
74.6
510
70.8
205
72.5
193
75.0
106
58.3
104
72.2
149
72.7
128
77.4
35
70.6
341
78.0
194
63.9
180
68.7
111
58.5
96
72.8
321
73.8
80
80.3
107
72.8
A lot
282
28.1
170
28.3
112
27.9
199
27.6
84
29.5
83
32.0
33
17.9
50
35.1
56
27.5
44
26.6
16
33.2
158
36.2
54
17.9
70
26.6
39
20.4
28
21.6
125
28.6
38
38.6
52
35.4
Some
276
27.5
162
27.0
114
28.4
199
27.6
77
27.3
73
28.3
49
26.8
35
24.7
56
27.3
53
32.1
10
20.1
116
26.4
85
28.0
75
28.8
40
21.1
43
32.9
133
30.5
26
26.2
34
23.1
A little
157
15.6
83
13.8
74
18.3
112
15.6
44
15.7
38
14.7
25
13.6
18
12.4
37
17.8
31
18.7
9
17.3
67
15.4
55
17.9
35
13.3
32
17.1
24
18.3
64
14.6
15
15.5
21
14.4
Not at all
271
27.0
172
28.7
99
24.5
195
27.1
75
26.7
57
22.2
72
39.3
38
26.3
54
26.2
37
22.6
13
26.6
89
20.4
105
34.7
76
29.1
75
39.5
35
26.5
105
24.1
20
19.7
36
24.7
Don't know
17
1.7
14
2.3
4
0.9
15
2.1
2
0.8
7
2.8
4
2.4
2
1.5
2
1.1
1
2.8
7
1.6
4
1.4
6
2.3
4
2.0
1
0.7
9
2.1
4
2.5
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Gender
Age
----------- -----------------------------
Fe65 or
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Health
Insurance
Age/Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Status
--------------------------------------------- ----------- Age 18-39
Age 40-64
White
----------- ----------nonNot
White
White
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

470
533
191
141
208
231
231
644
223
60
80
883
120
165
163
285
146
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
A lot/Some/A
little (net)
715
71.3
301
63.9
414
77.8
162
84.6
97
68.6
168
80.9
169
73.0
119
51.6
427
66.3
182
81.6
51
84.9
60
75.6
625
70.8
90
74.6
127
77.5
127
78.2
206
72.3
124
85.0
A lot
282
28.1
105
22.4
177
33.2
72
37.7
43
30.4
72
34.6
58
24.9
38
16.3
155
24.1
88
39.5
22
36.6
23
28.4
241
27.3
41
34.3
52
31.7
62
37.9
77
27.0
50
34.3
Some
276
27.5
108
23.0
168
31.5
63
33.0
32
22.9
58
28.0
76
33.0
46
19.9
162
25.2
70
31.2
19
31.6
28
34.9
244
27.6
33
27.0
46
28.1
47
29.0
78
27.4
54
37.3
A little
157
15.6
87
18.6
69
13.0
27
13.9
21
15.2
38
18.3
35
15.1
35
15.4
109
17.0
24
10.9
10
16.6
10
12.3
141
15.9
16
13.3
29
17.7
18
11.3
51
18.0
20
13.4
Not at all
271
27.0
157
33.3
114
21.4
26
13.4
44
31.4
38
18.5
59
25.7
102
44.3
206
32.0
40
17.9
9
14.2
17
21.6
248
28.1
23
18.9
36
21.7
34
21.2
76
26.8
20
13.8
Don't know
17
1.7
13
2.7
4
0.8
4
1.9
1
0.6
3
1.3
9
4.0
11
1.7
1
0.5
1
0.9
2
2.8
10
1.1
8
6.5
1
0.9
1
0.6
3
0.9
2
1.2
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Education
----------------------H.S. Some
Grad- ColPost
Trade lege uate
===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Union
Household Income
Status
Marital Status
----------------------------- ----------- ----------------MarLess
More
ried/
Than $20
$40
$60- Than Yes,
Live
$20K -40K -60K $100K $100K Any
No
Tgthr
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Separ
Divor
Wido
-wed
=====
Sample
Listing
line phone
===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

145
346
267
235
128
163
164
229
237
216
780
607
148
239
741
262
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
A lot/Some/A
little (net)
715
71.3
103
70.7
257
74.3
185
69.3
164
69.8
105
81.7
111
68.2
119
72.9
155
67.9
169
71.2
176
81.7
533
68.3
424
69.8
102
68.7
183
76.8
536
72.3
179
68.4
A lot
282
28.1
46
31.7
106
30.6
64
24.0
66
28.1
54
42.2
52
32.2
41
24.7
56
24.5
57
24.1
78
36.0
203
26.0
159
26.1
41
27.8
80
33.7
214
28.9
68
25.9
Some
276
27.5
35
23.9
102
29.4
74
27.7
60
25.6
36
28.1
39
23.7
46
28.0
60
26.2
72
30.2
65
29.9
209
26.8
165
27.1
38
25.9
71
29.8
206
27.8
70
26.9
A little
157
15.6
22
15.1
49
14.2
47
17.6
38
16.1
14
11.3
20
12.4
33
20.2
39
17.1
40
16.9
34
15.7
121
15.5
100
16.5
22
14.9
32
13.3
116
15.6
41
15.7
Not at all
271
27.0
39
26.8
86
24.8
75
28.0
69
29.5
21
16.2
44
27.1
43
26.5
73
31.9
66
27.7
37
17.3
232
29.8
177
29.2
42
28.2
51
21.3
192
25.9
79
30.2
Don't know
17
1.7
4
2.4
3
1.0
7
2.7
2
0.7
3
2.2
8
4.7
1
0.6
*
0.2
3
1.1
2
1.0
15
1.9
6
1.0
5
3.2
5
1.9
14
1.8
4
1.4
Project #2012-001
21 Feb 2012
Tea Party
Impacted by State
Brown Job
Religion
Budget Cuts
Rating
----------------------- ----------- ----------------- ----------------------- ----------Protestant/
Not
Not
At
A Lit At
No
A lot Some All
A Lot Some
-tle All
prove prove
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Obama Re-elect
----------------------Not
Re-elect
Re-elect
Stron Not
Not
Stron
===== ===== ===== =====
Weighted Base 1003

408
252
123
220
273
730
100
292
583
282
276
157
271
454
378
169
78
49
153
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
A lot/Some/A
little (net)
715
71.3
303
74.4
181
71.8
80
64.9
151
68.3
202
73.9
513
70.3
54
54.1
191
65.4
448
282
276
157
76.8 100.0 100.0 100.0
348
76.6
244
64.6
135
79.7
63
81.4
42
86.1
86
56.5
A lot
282
28.1
106
26.0
76
30.1
36
29.3
64
29.1
68
25.1
214
29.3
15
15.4
74
25.4
186
282
31.8 100.0
Some
276
27.5
129
31.7
65
25.8
27
21.7
55
25.1
83
30.4
193
26.5
20
19.8
71
24.3
A little
157
15.6
68
16.7
40
16.0
17
14.0
31
14.1
50
18.5
106
14.5
19
18.9
Not at all
271
27.0
97
23.9
68
27.1
42
34.2
63
28.6
68
25.0
203
27.7
Don't know
17
1.7
7
1.7
3
1.1
1
0.8
7
3.1
3
1.1
14
2.0
Project #2012-001
133
29.4
105
27.7
69
40.9
29
37.4
15
30.3
25
16.5
175
30.0
276
- 100.0
140
30.8
86
22.8
42
25.0
26
33.7
17
34.9
41
27.0
46
15.8
87
15.0
157
- 100.0
75
16.5
54
14.2
23
13.7
8
10.3
10
20.9
20
13.1
42
41.9
100
34.3
126
21.5
271
- 100.0
100
22.0
128
34.0
34
19.8
14
18.6
7
13.9
65
42.6
4
3.9
1
0.3
10
1.6
6
1.4
5
1.3
1
0.5
1
0.8

Tabulations From A Survey of California Registered Voters About State Budget Issues For Its California Budget Challenge Internet Tool

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tabulations From A Survey of California Registered Voters About State Budget Issues For Its California Budget Challenge Internet Tool

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIELD

FOUNDED IN 1945 BY MERVIN FIELD

Tabulations From a Survey of California Registered Voters about

Guide to Reading the Tables

all other 48 California counties

all other 38 California counties

Los Angeles County

San Diego County and Orange counties

Estimates of Sampling Error

Base: Registered voters

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Base: Registered voters

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Base: Registered voters

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Base: Registered voters

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Don't know/no 118

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Don't know/no 118

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Don't know/no 118

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Don't know/no 118

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003

Field Research Corporation

Weighted Base 1003