Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll # Page 1

Transcription

1 In Special Election in GA's 6th Congressional District, 4 Republican Candidates Splinter Conservative Vote; Democrat Ossoff Gets Lion's Share of Moderate and Liberal Vote, Is Clear Front-Runner, 2 Weeks Till Votes Are Counted, Who Could Win Seat Outright: 18 names, including 11 Republicans, are on the ballot in the 04/18/17 special election to fill the seat in the U.S. House of Representatives left vacant when Republican Tom Price resigned to become Donald Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services. And though Price has won GA-06 with 62%, 66%, and 65% of the vote in the last 3 elections, it is a Democrat who leads at this hour, 2 weeks till votes are counted, according to SurveyUSA research conducted exclusively for WXIA-TV in Atlanta. Jon Ossoff, a filmmaker, former journalist, and former congressional staffer, gets 43% of the vote "today," impressive given that there are 4 other Democrats on the ballot who, combined, get 4% of the vote. The top 4 Republican finishers --- Karen Handel (15%), Bob Gray (14%), Dan Moody (7%), Judson Hill (5%) --- carve up the conservative constituency. If Republicans are able to keep Democrat Ossoff from getting 50% of the vote on 04/18/17, then Republicans will be able to consolidate behind the top GOP finisher, be that Handel or Gray, and take-on Ossoff one-on-one in a runoff 06/20/17. But: should Ossoff reach 50% in the 18-person field, the Democrats flip the seat from Red to Blue without a runoff, fueling speculation about whether the Democrats may re-capture the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2018 mid-term elections, as backlash against heavy-handed President Trump. Ossoff's support is young, educated and affluent. The younger and wealthier the electorate, the better Ossoff will do. Among Democrats, he gets 86% of the vote; among Strong Democrats he gets 85% of the vote; among those who are somewhat liberal, he gets 92% of the vote, among those who are very liberal, he gets 91%. Of those who voted for Republican Price in 2016, 13% cross-over and vote for the Democrat Ossoff in Republican Handel's support is old and white. Republican Gray's support is middle-aged, middle-income and Evangelical. Of voters who say Congress should stay focused on health care, Handel leads Gray 22% to 8%. Context: 900 registered voters were interviewed by SurveyUSA 03/27/17 through 04/02/17, using voter-list sample provided by Aristotle in Washington DC. Of the 900 registered voters, 503 were determined by SurveyUSA to have already voted or to be likely to do so before the deadline. This research was conducted 100% by telephone: 68% of likely voters were interviewed on their home telephones in the recorded voice of a professional announcer. 32% of likely voters were interviewed on their cell phones, using live operators, who hand-dialed the respondent's cell phone, secured the respondent's cooperation, qualified the respondent as a voter, asked the questions, entered the answers, and remained on the line until the survey was completed. Polling Congressional Districts is challenging even under ideal circumstances. Polling for a special election, where nothing else is on the ballot, and where turnout could be a fraction of what it was in the 2016 general election, is even more challenging. Some news reports indicate that Republicans have started to spend money in GA-06 only in the past couple of days. If Republicans make a significant media buy in the remaining 2 weeks, Ossoff's support may be overstated here, and his chances of winning the seat outright on 04/18/17 would be reduced. To the extent that Democrats see Ossoff and 04/18/17 as their best shot at flipping the seat, and spend dollars accordingly, the fight will be to the finish. - Page 1

2 1 Gender Age <50 / 50+ Race Already Voted? Credibility Interval: +/-4.5 pct points Male Female White Black Hispani Asian / Yes No Abroms (R) 2% 2% 1% 0% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% 0% ** ** 0% 2% Ali Bhuiyan (R) 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 4% ** ** 0% 1% Edwards (D) 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3% ** ** 0% 1% Grawert (R) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% ** ** 0% 0% Gray (R) 14% 15% 13% 4% 22% 7% 17% 16% 12% 15% 3% ** ** 9% 14% Handel (R) 15% 15% 15% 14% 9% 13% 24% 11% 18% 16% 1% ** ** 14% 15% Hernandez (I) 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% ** ** 0% 1% Hill (R) 5% 6% 5% 0% 7% 5% 8% 5% 6% 6% 0% ** ** 10% 5% Keatley (D) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% ** ** 0% 0% Kremer (R) 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% ** ** 0% 1% LeVell (R) 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% ** ** 0% 1% Llop (R) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% ** ** 0% 0% Moody (R) 7% 8% 7% 6% 4% 7% 10% 5% 9% 6% 11% ** ** 4% 7% Ossoff (D) 43% 40% 44% 71% 43% 43% 29% 51% 37% 43% 55% ** ** 52% 41% Pollard (I) 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 2% 0% 12% ** ** 0% 1% Quigg (D) 2% 2% 2% 0% 3% 4% 0% 2% 2% 2% 8% ** ** 0% 2% Slotin (D) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% ** ** 0% 0% Wilson (R) 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% ** ** 0% 1% Undecided 7% 5% 9% 5% 8% 9% 4% 7% 7% 7% 3% ** ** 11% 7% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Composition of Likely And Actual Vot 100% 45% 55% 13% 29% 32% 26% 42% 58% 81% 10% 4% 5% 11% 89% - Page 2

3 1 Party Affiliation Party Affiliation Ideology 2016 Vote Credibility Interval: +/-4.5 pct points Strong Republi Indy Le Indepen Indy Le Democr Strong Republi Indepen Democr Very Co Somew Modera Somew Very Li Trump Clinton Abroms (R) 2% 4% 3% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 2% 0% 4% 0% 0% 3% 0% Ali Bhuiyan (R) 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% Edwards (D) 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% Grawert (R) 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Gray (R) 14% 38% 19% 25% 4% 2% 0% 0% 30% 11% 0% 31% 24% 5% 2% 0% 28% 0% Handel (R) 15% 32% 26% 26% 11% 0% 0% 3% 30% 14% 2% 28% 29% 7% 0% 7% 30% 1% Hernandez (I) 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% Hill (R) 5% 6% 19% 12% 2% 0% 0% 0% 11% 5% 0% 10% 12% 4% 0% 0% 11% 1% Keatley (D) 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% Kremer (R) 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% LeVell (R) 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Llop (R) 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Moody (R) 7% 6% 18% 9% 11% 1% 1% 6% 11% 7% 4% 7% 14% 9% 1% 2% 11% 3% Ossoff (D) 43% 0% 5% 10% 36% 82% 86% 85% 2% 40% 85% 7% 5% 47% 92% 91% 3% 83% Pollard (I) 1% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% Quigg (D) 2% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 0% 6% 0% 3% 4% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 2% 2% Slotin (D) 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Wilson (R) 1% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 0% Undecided 7% 5% 7% 10% 9% 14% 8% 0% 6% 11% 3% 5% 11% 11% 2% 0% 6% 5% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Composition of Likely And Actual Vot 100% 19% 12% 14% 11% 10% 13% 19% 32% 35% 32% 23% 18% 26% 22% 9% 45% 49% - Page 3

4 Rep Vote Attend Church Evangelical Lived in GA Education Income Credibility Interval: +/-4.5 pct points Price Stooksb Never Occasio Regular Yes No <20 Yrs Y >30 Ye High Sc Some C 4-year < $40K $40K - > $80K Abroms (R) 2% 1% 0% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% 1% 2% Ali Bhuiyan (R) 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 4% 0% 0% Edwards (D) 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Grawert (R) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Gray (R) 14% 22% 0% 5% 13% 20% 28% 10% 4% 8% 22% 32% 10% 6% 16% 25% 8% Handel (R) 15% 26% 5% 11% 13% 18% 21% 12% 3% 14% 21% 11% 15% 16% 7% 15% 15% Hernandez (I) 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% Hill (R) 5% 11% 0% 1% 5% 7% 13% 3% 4% 3% 7% 3% 5% 7% 0% 4% 7% Keatley (D) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% Kremer (R) 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% LeVell (R) 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% Llop (R) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% Moody (R) 7% 11% 1% 6% 4% 10% 9% 6% 7% 6% 8% 3% 8% 9% 18% 3% 8% Ossoff (D) 43% 13% 89% 66% 47% 27% 16% 54% 63% 48% 30% 34% 44% 48% 25% 44% 48% Pollard (I) 1% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 12% 0% 0% Quigg (D) 2% 2% 0% 0% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 5% 0% 4% 5% 0% 11% 0% 2% Slotin (D) 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% Wilson (R) 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% Undecided 7% 8% 0% 4% 8% 7% 5% 7% 5% 9% 6% 5% 8% 7% 4% 6% 6% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Composition of Likely And Actual Vot 100% 51% 14% 25% 33% 42% 24% 72% 26% 27% 47% 26% 25% 49% 11% 34% 55% - Page 4

5 1 Cell Phone / Lan Credibility Interval: +/-4.5 pct points Cell Ph Landlin Abroms (R) 2% 1% 2% Ali Bhuiyan (R) 0% 1% 0% Edwards (D) 1% 0% 1% Grawert (R) 0% 0% 0% Gray (R) 14% 5% 18% Handel (R) 15% 10% 17% Hernandez (I) 1% 1% 0% Hill (R) 5% 4% 6% Keatley (D) 0% 1% 0% Kremer (R) 1% 0% 1% LeVell (R) 1% 0% 1% Llop (R) 0% 0% 0% Moody (R) 7% 4% 9% Ossoff (D) 43% 53% 38% Pollard (I) 1% 4% 0% Quigg (D) 2% 0% 3% Slotin (D) 0% 0% 0% Wilson (R) 1% 0% 1% Undecided 7% 17% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% Composition of Likely And Actual Vot 100% 32% 68% - Page 5

6 2 [Top 4 finishers, displayed here from largest share of vote to smallest. If any one candidate receives 50% of the vote in the special election, he/she wins the seat outright] <p> Gender Age <50 / 50+ Race Already Voted? Credibility Interval: +/-4.5 pct points Male Female White Black Hispani Asian / Yes No Ossoff (D) 43% 40% 44% 71% 43% 43% 29% 51% 37% 43% 55% ** ** 52% 41% Handel (R) 15% 15% 15% 14% 9% 13% 24% 11% 18% 16% 1% ** ** 14% 15% Gray (R) 14% 15% 13% 4% 22% 7% 17% 16% 12% 15% 3% ** ** 9% 14% Moody (R) 7% 8% 7% 6% 4% 7% 10% 5% 9% 6% 11% ** ** 4% 7% others combined 15% 17% 13% 0% 14% 20% 16% 10% 18% 12% 28% ** ** 10% 15% Undecided 7% 5% 9% 5% 8% 9% 4% 7% 7% 7% 3% ** ** 11% 7% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Composition of Likely And Actual Vot 100% 45% 55% 13% 29% 32% 26% 42% 58% 81% 10% 4% 5% 11% 89% 2 [Top 4 finishers, displayed here from largest share of vote to smallest. If any one candidate receives 50% of the vote in the special election, he/she wins the seat outright] <p> Party Affiliation Party Affiliation Ideology 2016 Vote Credibility Interval: +/-4.5 pct points Strong Republi Indy Le Indepen Indy Le Democr Strong Republi Indepen Democr Very Co Somew Modera Somew Very Li Trump Clinton Ossoff (D) 43% 0% 5% 10% 36% 82% 86% 85% 2% 40% 85% 7% 5% 47% 92% 91% 3% 83% Handel (R) 15% 32% 26% 26% 11% 0% 0% 3% 30% 14% 2% 28% 29% 7% 0% 7% 30% 1% Gray (R) 14% 38% 19% 25% 4% 2% 0% 0% 30% 11% 0% 31% 24% 5% 2% 0% 28% 0% Moody (R) 7% 6% 18% 9% 11% 1% 1% 6% 11% 7% 4% 7% 14% 9% 1% 2% 11% 3% others combined 15% 19% 25% 20% 29% 1% 4% 7% 21% 17% 6% 21% 16% 21% 3% 0% 22% 8% Undecided 7% 5% 7% 10% 9% 14% 8% 0% 6% 11% 3% 5% 11% 11% 2% 0% 6% 5% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Composition of Likely And Actual Vot 100% 19% 12% 14% 11% 10% 13% 19% 32% 35% 32% 23% 18% 26% 22% 9% 45% 49% - Page 6

7 2 [Top 4 finishers, displayed here from largest share of vote to smallest. If any one candidate receives 50% of the vote in the special election, he/she wins the seat outright] <p> 2016 Rep Vote Attend Church Evangelical Lived in GA Education Income Credibility Interval: +/-4.5 pct points Price Stooksb Never Occasio Regular Yes No <20 Yrs Y >30 Ye High Sc Some C 4-year < $40K $40K - > $80K Ossoff (D) 43% 13% 89% 66% 47% 27% 16% 54% 63% 48% 30% 34% 44% 48% 25% 44% 48% Handel (R) 15% 26% 5% 11% 13% 18% 21% 12% 3% 14% 21% 11% 15% 16% 7% 15% 15% Gray (R) 14% 22% 0% 5% 13% 20% 28% 10% 4% 8% 22% 32% 10% 6% 16% 25% 8% Moody (R) 7% 11% 1% 6% 4% 10% 9% 6% 7% 6% 8% 3% 8% 9% 18% 3% 8% others combined 15% 19% 4% 9% 16% 18% 21% 11% 18% 14% 13% 15% 17% 13% 30% 7% 16% Undecided 7% 8% 0% 4% 8% 7% 5% 7% 5% 9% 6% 5% 8% 7% 4% 6% 6% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Composition of Likely And Actual Vot 100% 51% 14% 25% 33% 42% 24% 72% 26% 27% 47% 26% 25% 49% 11% 34% 55% 2 [Top 4 finishers, displayed here from largest share of vote to smallest. If any one candidate receives 50% of the vote in the special election, he/she wins the seat outright] <p> Cell Phone / Lan Credibility Interval: +/-4.5 pct points Cell Ph Landlin Ossoff (D) 43% 53% 38% Handel (R) 15% 10% 17% Gray (R) 14% 5% 18% Moody (R) 7% 4% 9% others combined 15% 12% 16% Undecided 7% 17% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% Composition of Likely And Actual Vot 100% 32% 68% ** Too few respondents of this type were interviewed for this data to be meaningful. - Page 7

8 Statement of Methodology: SurveyUSA is an independent, non-partisan, apolitical research company that conducts opinion surveys for media, academic institutions, commercial clients, non-profits, governments, agencies, and elected officials. SurveyUSA opinion research is conducted using a methodology optimized for each particular project. In some cases, this means data is collected 100% by telephone; in some cases, 100% online; and in other cases, a blend of the two. For those projects that are conducted mixed-mode (or multi-mode ): Respondents who have a home (landline) telephone are interviewed by phone, sometimes using live interviewers, other times using the recorded voice of a professional announcer. The youngest male is requested on approximately 30% of calls to home phones, the youngest adult is requested on approximately 70% of calls. This method of intra-household selection reduces the potential for age and gender imbalance in the unweighted sample. Re-attempts are made to busy signals, no-answers, and answering machines. For surveys using random-digit-dial (RDD) to call landline phones, sample is purchased from SSI of Shelton CT. For surveys using voter-list (RBS) sample to call landline phones, sample is purchased from Aristotle of Washington DC. Respondents who do not use a home telephone are interviewed on an electronic device, which means, for some projects, that call-center employees hand-dial cell phones and interview respondents verbally on the respondent s cell phone, and means, for other projects, that SurveyUSA displays the questions visually on the respondent s phone, tablet, or other device. Sample for respondents who do not use a home telephone is purchased from SSI, from Aristotle, or from one of several other research companies that provide access to cell respondents. Where meaningful, SurveyUSA indicates the percentage of respondents who use a home phone and the percentage who do not, and crosstabs by this distinction. If sample of adults is drawn from SSI, responses are minimally weighted to U.S. Census targets for gender, age and race. If sample of voters is drawn from Aristotle, responses are minimally weighted to the known demographics of the voter file, which include gender and age but, typically, not race. Target (cell) weighting is used. On questionnaires that ask about political party identification, SurveyUSA may or may not weight to Party ID, depending on client preference. Where necessary, questions and answer choices are rotated to prevent order bias, recency, and latency effects. On some studies, certain populations are over-sampled, so that the number of unweighted respondents exceeds the number of weighted respondents. Each individual SurveyUSA release contains the date(s) on which interviews are conducted and a release date. If interviewing for a particular study is conducted in Spanish, or in any other foreign language, it will be noted on the specific release. If no notation appears, interviews are conducted in English. Where respondents are filtered, such as adults, filtered to registered voters, in turn filtered to likely voters, SurveyUSA describes the filtering on the specific release. On pre-election polls in geographies with early voting, SurveyUSA differentiates between respondents who have already voted and those who are likely to vote but have not yet done so. On research completed prior to 12/31/16, SurveyUSA assigned to each question within the instrument a theoretical margin of sampling error. Effective 01/01/17, SurveyUSA assigns to each question within the instrument a credibility interval, which better reflects the sampling uncertainties associated with gathering some percentage of respondent answers using non-probability sample. Though commonly cited in the presentation of research results, sampling error is only one of many types of error that may influence the outcome of an opinion research study. More practical concerns include the way in which questions are worded and ordered, the inability to contact some, the refusal of others to be interviewed, and the difficulty of translating each questionnaire into all possible languages and dialects. Non-sampling errors cannot be quantified. This statement conforms to the principals of disclosure as recommended by the National Council on Public Polls (NCPP). Questions about SurveyUSA research can be addressed to editor@surveyusa.com. - Page 8