PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL

TO:
FROM:
RE:

Team Cincinnatus
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates
California U.S. Senate Survey Results

As a follow-up to the recent meeting, we wanted to provide a summary of the key findings to
help inform the process.
Our December surveyi shows that Tom Steyer is clearly a strong contender to win the seat now
open due to the announced retirement of Senator Barbara Boxer. Steyer’s profile, background
and the storyline of his political and charitable involvement combine to form an attractive
foundation for a candidacy.
The survey was conducted by telephone—cell phones and landlines—from December 18-22,
2014 among 600 registered Democrats and non-partisan voters at least somewhat likely to
support a Democratic candidate in the June 2016 primary—obviously as the field takes shape,
this research will need to be expanded to include registered Republicans and other voters.
The key highlights include:
1) The environment—including climate change, the need for clean energy jobs, and efforts to
combat water and air pollution—is placed with education and income inequality (requiring
the very wealthy and big business to pay their fair share) as one of the top three priorities
for California’s next Senator;
2) Three-in-four (75%) voters say they would be likely to support a candidate who led the
fight to pass Proposition 39, including spending his own money, in order to close tax
loopholes on out-of-state companies, and therefore generate more revenue for schools and
clean energy construction jobs;
3) 79% voters say they would be likely to support a national leader in promoting new clean
energy technologies;
4) 66% of voters say they would be likely to support a candidate who “believes climate
change is the biggest challenge of our times”;
5) 66% of voters say they would be likely to support a successful businessman who
understands how the global 21st Century economy works;
2425 Colorado Avenue. Suite 180
Santa Monica, CA
90404
Phone:
(310) 828-1183
Fax:
(310) 453-6562

1999 Harrison Street Suite 2020
Oakland, CA
94612
Phone:
(510) 451-9521
Fax:
(510) 451-0384

California U.S. Senate – Summary of Survey Results
Page 2

6) 65% of voters say they would be likely to support a candidate who has committed to giving
away the majority of his personal wealth to help the next generation get a fair shake;
These questions were all asked in generic terms—without associating the statements with the
actual candidate—Tom Steyer—they describe. Upon hearing an actual description of Tom
Steyer, 75% of voters said they would be likely to support him, with 41% saying they would be
“very” likely to favor Steyer.
Much of the elements of this campaign are, of course, yet to be determined so soon after Senator
Boxer’s announcement—particularly the precise make-up of the field, including Republicans
since all candidates must attempt to qualify for the November general election by finishing in the
top two. What is clearly evident, however, is that unlike other wealthy and mainly self-funded
candidates in the past, Tom Steyer possesses a very sound foundation among the voters in terms
of the issues, and political and charitable activities that provide his motivation for running. That
is a huge asset for him going forward.
A final point of interest, given the nature of the pool California June 2016 primary voters – and
depending on whether the Republican Party can field a credible and financially resourced
candidate, there is a clear opportunity for there to be two Democrats emerging for the November
General election run-off. In such a scenario, Tom Steyer’s profile can make him the best
positioned candidate to have cross-over appeal, especially with non-partisan voters.

i

Methodology: From December 18-22, 2014, FM3 completed 600 interviews via landline and cellular telephones
with Democrats and voters registered as No Party Preference who are likely to vote in the June 2016 statewide
primary election. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of ±4.0% at the 95% confidence
interval; margins of sampling error for subgroups within the sample will be larger. Some percentages may not sum
to 100% due to rounding.