2425 Colorado Avenue. Suite 180 1999 Harrison Street Suite 2020 Santa Monica, CA 90404 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (310) 828-1183 Phone: (510) 451-9521 Fax: (310) 453-6562 Fax: (510) 451-0384
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL TO:
Team Cincinnatus
FROM:
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates
RE:
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 survey
i
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, bac
kground 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 21
st
Century economy works;
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.