FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION

FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION FOUNDED IN 15 BY MERVIN FIELD 601 California Street San Francisco, California 8 32563 Tabulations From a Survey of California Registered Voters About the Job Performance of the U.S. Congress and their Own Congressional Representative and Generic Party Preferences of Likely Voters for their House District This Fall prepared for the Sacramento Bee and Capitol Alert September, 201

Introduction This volume presents the statistical data developed from a Field Poll survey of registered voters in California about the job performance of the U.S. Congress overall, the job performance of the own Congressional representative and generic party preferences of likely voters in their district this fall. The survey conducted among 1,280 registered voters August 128, 201 by telephone in six languages and dialects English, Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin, Korean, and Vietnamese. In order to cover a broad range of issues and still minimize respondent fatigue, questions about the job performance of the U.S. Congress and their own congressional representative are based on a random subsample of 62 registered voters, while generic party preferences in the House district are based on 6 likely voters. Sampling The voter sample was developed from telephone listings of individual voters selected randomly from a listing of statewide voter registration rolls. Once a voter s name and telephone had been selected, interviews are attempted only with the specified voter. Interviews can be conducted on either the voter s landline or cell phone, depending on the source of the telephone listing from the voter file and the preference of the voter. Prior to the start of data collection, professionallytrained telephone interviewers were briefed with regard to the survey s 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 questionbyquestion review of all items in the survey. Interviewers then completed survey interviews by telephone through the computerassisted telephone interviewing (TI) system. TI 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 precoded answer category through the keyboard directly to a computer disk. All answers are automatically stored in computer memory. In order to bring hardtoreach respondents into the survey, up to six attempts 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 TI interviewing is itself virtually errorfree. 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 errorfree, the overall sample was weighted to align it to its proper statewide proportions by demographic characteristics of the state s 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 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 0 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 0% due to multiple mentions. s 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: Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kern, and San Luis Obispo counties Northern California: all other 8 California counties Coastal Counties: Inland counties: Los Angeles: San Diego/Orange: Other South: SF Bay Area: Central Valley: Other North: 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 all other 38 California counties Los Angeles County San Diego County and Orange counties San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo San Francisco, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba 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 associated with samples of various sizes at the 5% confidence level, which is customary for most public opinion surveys. For example, if 50% of the random subsample of 62 registered voters in this survey answered yes to a specific question, this statistic would have a sampling error of plus or minus.0 percentage points at the 5% confidence level. This means that there is a 5% 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 6.0% and 5.0%. 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 sample size % % 50% 0% 0% 0 +/ 6.0 +/.2 +/.0 +/.2 +/ 6.0 0 +/ 3.5 +/ 5.3 +/ 5.8 +/ 5.3 +/ 3.5 6 +/ 2. +/.3 +/.8 +/.3 +/ 2. 62 +/ 2. +/ 3. +/.0 +/ 3. +/ 2. There are many other possible sources of error other than sampling variability in this and any other public opinion survey. The overall design and execution of the survey minimized the potential for these other sources of error.

Questions Asked (Asked of likely voters) Thinking about the upcoming election for House of Representatives in your district in November. If the election were being held today would you be inclined to vote for the candidate or the Democratic candidate? (IF UNCERTAIN, PROBE:) Well, which party s candidate do you lean towards at this time? (Asked of registered voters) Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job? Do you approve or disapprove of the job your own representative in Congress is doing?

Total North/South Coastal/Inland Area Party Registration Gender Southern Northern Coastal counties Inland counties L.A. County South Coast Inland Empire Other So. Central Valley SF Bay Area Other Northern Democrat Other/ no pref Likely Voter Permanent Absentee Voter Male Female Yes No Yes No Q. Thinking about the upcoming election for House of Representatives in your district in November. If the election were being held today would you be inclined to vote for the candidate or the Democratic candidate? Weighted REPUBLIN DEMOCRAT NO OPINION/OTHER 6 28 183 36 1 125 2 8 1 5 20 202 8 25 2 6 263 20 3 38.5% 25 5.% 8.6% 3 12 0.8% 8 5.3% 2.8% 251 0 35.% 1 6.5% 5.8% 35 1 33.2% 12 8.6% 2 18.2% 82 51.6% 62 3.1%.3% 128 3.2% 68 52.8% 22 16.% 6 50 52.0% 32.0% 16.1% 52 20 38.0% 5.1% 2 2.% 28 16 56.%.2% 3 12.0% 83 5.0% 25 2.% 11.3% 12.% 6 5.6% 16.5% 1 25.1% 16 3.% 1 35.0% 252 8.5% 20 80.% 2.8% 18 8.0% 5.2% 20.8% 1 33 2.3% 1 36.1% 3 3.6% 261 0.8% 1 2.1% 5.1% 23 36.% 1.2% 2 1.% 3 38.5% 25 5.% 8.6% 116 3.8% 3.6% 3 12.6% 2 3.3% 2 1.2% 8 1.5% Field Research Corporation Table 28

Total 182 3 0 506 Age Race/Ethnicity Political Ideology Marital Status 65 or older White non Hispanic Latino African American Asian/ Pacific Islander Chinese Korean Q. Thinking about the upcoming election for House of Representatives in your district in November. If the election were being held today would you be inclined to vote for the candidate or the Democratic candidate? Weighted REPUBLIN DEMOCRAT NO OPINION/OTHER Vietnamese Strongly conservative Moderately conservative Middle of the road Moderately liberal Strongly liberal Married/ Not married living together Widow/ separated/ divorced 6 3 8 50 18 261 8 33 2 3 0 3 160 28 85 85 3 38.5% 25 5.% 8.6% 5 18.6% 5.8% 8.6% 81 36.5% 1 50.6% 11.0% 5 3.3% 20 3.8% 16 2.% 183 3 3.% 88.8% 12.5% 6 2 0.8% 5 2.% 16.8% 388 16 2.2% 0 3.6% 1.1% 36 38.1% 5 8.2%.8% 3 2 6.3% 26.3% 1.% 56 16 2.5% 25 5.% 1 2.6% 2.2% 8 56.% 2 1.% 5 1.% 1.5% 0.6% 8 5.2% 3 36.3% 1.5% 11 6 8.5% 11.1% 6 5.5% 6.5%.1% 11.% 12 5.8% 8 5.1% 6 2.2% 3 82.5% 6.5% * * 0.%.1% 32 6 1.% 8 2.1% 53 16.2% 1 0 36.3% 53 8.3%.% Never married 6 33.2% 56 53.0%.8% Field Research Corporation Table 2

Total H.S. or less Education Household Income Congressional District Some college/ trade school College Post work Under $20,000 $20,000 $0,000 $0,000 $60,000 $0,000 $0,000 More that $0,000 Open Democratic Incumbent Democrat Q. Thinking about the upcoming election for House of Representatives in your district in November. If the election were being held today would you be inclined to vote for the candidate or the Democratic candidate? Weighted REPUBLIN DEMOCRAT NO OPINION/OTHER Incumbent Union affiliated HH 6 5 3 5 1 66 1 3 28 1 125 363 8 3 38.5% 25 5.% 8.6% 0.6% 3 52.5% 5 6.8% 2 86.% 32.3%.8% 3.8% 8 8.% 26 16.3% 16 0 2.8% 82 56.3%.% 66 2 36.% 3 50.8% 8 12.8% 88 33 38.0% 53.6% 8.% 66 28 3.1% 2.% 8 12.5% 1 3.% 52.8%.8% 1 8 32.1% 68.% 35.0% 2.5% 2 5.8%.6% 33 11.% 188 50.5% 65.6% 35 111 32.1% 2 50.0% 61.8% 182 52.0% 66 36.3% 11.% 161 8.% 3.2%.3% No 35 16 3.% 15.% 6.% Yes (Total) 111 6 1.%.2%.1% Field Research Corporation Table

Total North/South Coastal/Inland Area Party Registration Gender Likely Voter Southern Northern Coastal counties Inland counties L.A. County South Coast Inland Empire Other So. Q18. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job? Weighted 62 36 266 60 182 5 60 3 APPROVE DISAPPROVE NO OPINION Central Valley SF Bay Area Other Northern Democrat Other/ no pref Permanent Absentee Voter Male Female Yes No Yes No 62 31 251 163 12 111 63 25 1 16 1 2 8 20 33 5 6 06 32 5 86.% 80.8% 6 11.8% 5 1.5% 2.3% 2 11.2% 11.8% 201 5.5% 3 12.% 65 1.1% 33 3.3% 58 12.5% 11.6% 8.5% 18.% 3 20.% 1 66.0%.2% 6.5% 8 83.3% 11.2% 11.% 8.2% 6.1% 11.0% 28 83.1% 2 5.% 6 8.6% 85 80.1% 12 11.3% Field Research Corporation Table 3 0 16 12.1% 3 1.2% 22 16.%.8% 8.2% 282 53 18.6% 20 3.%.5% 185 1.6% 8.1% 26 1.3% 1 11.1% 12 2.% 28 16.2% 3 35 11.5% 20.2% 28.3% 33 51.1% 20 0.% 8 1.1% 26 33 12.0% 225 81.5% 18 6.5% 366 53 1.% 2 6.8% 58.8% 6 0 12.% 228.5% 38 12.5% 336 6.8% 252 5.0% 3 11.1%

Total 182 3 0 506 Age Race/Ethnicity Political Ideology Marital Status 65 or older White non Hispanic Latino African American Asian/ Pacific Islander Q18. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job? Weighted 62 11 3 11 3 1 38 6 APPROVE DISAPPROVE NO OPINION Chinese Korean Vietnamese Strongly conservative Moderately conservative Middle of the road Moderately liberal Strongly liberal Married/ Not married living together Widow/ separated/ divorced 62 8 8 1 2 8 265 2 6 3 5 6 258 2 5 35 5 18 86.% 80.8% 6 11.8% 1.8% 8 68.2% 1.0% 12.6% 82 5.0% 16 1.5% 22.5% 68 65.8% 12.% 16.2% 83.5%.3% 1.% 5.%.% 38.6% 32 82.5%.% 35.% 5 63.8% 1 12.8% 5.% 81.8% 2.8%.2% 6.% 2 3.8% 18 5 2.0% 8.% 2.3% 6 * 6.% 2.0% 63.6% 38.3% 2 18.5% 5 3.2% 88 1.% 66 5.1%.6% 5.6% 68 0.8%.6% 23 35 12.8% 206 5.% 32 11.8% 56.5% 1 3.1% 6 11.% 5.% 8 81.%.% 35 3.3% 2.3% 12.% 5 20.2% 1 6.3% 12.% Never married 16 2.% 1 3.6% 18.5% Field Research Corporation Table

Total H.S. or less Education Household Income Congressional District Some college/ trade school College Post work Under $20,000 $20,000 $0,000 $0,000 $60,000 Q18. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job? Weighted 62 12 205 168 3 1 80 APPROVE DISAPPROVE NO OPINION $0,000 $0,000 More that $0,000 Open Democratic Incumbent Democrat Incumbent Union affiliated HH 62 161 15 166 3 1 6 2 12 53 5 38 16 1 532 80 86.% 80.8% 6 11.8% 16.3% 8 66.1% 22.6%.% 2.3%.3% 32 1.2% 11 0.%.8%.6% 11 8.5% 2.%.% 63 63.3%.3% 26 22.1% 85 2.% 6 5.1%.% 61 6.1% 1.3% Field Research Corporation Table 5 1 8.% 1.2% 1 12.%.% 1 81.%.% 52 18.3% 5.% 11.8% 6 1.% 322 2.2% 53 11.% 11 63.3% 0 3.1% 8 11.6% 16.% 8 80.6% 11.% 1.6% 1 83.1%.3% No 5 6.2% 31.8% 63 12.0% Yes (Total) 8 1.5% 6.3% 8.2%

Total North/South Coastal/Inland Area Party Registration Gender Likely Voter Southern Northern Coastal counties Inland counties L.A. County South Coast Inland Empire Other So. Central Valley SF Bay Area Q1. Do you approve or disapprove of the job your own representative in Congress is doing? Weighted 62 36 266 60 182 5 60 3 6 0 APPROVE DISAPPROVE NO OPINION Other Northern Democrat Other/ no pref Permanent Absentee Voter Male Female Yes No Yes No 62 31 251 163 12 111 63 25 1 16 1 2 8 20 33 5 6 06 32 5 2 35.% 256 3.8% 6 2.3% 6 36.2% 1.0% 86 22.8% 5 35.5% 2 38.1% 0 26.3% 182 3.6% 38.5% 1.% 8 26.5% 3.2%.3% 81 5.% 51 28.% 5 25.5% 26 25.0% 52.8% 22.2% 20 33.5% 26 3.8% 1 22.% 8 2.6% 22 6.5%.% 20 1.1% 5 2.3% 1 38.6% Field Research Corporation Table 6 56 3.3% 5 3.% 2 22.3% 18 60.0% 12 3.8% * 0.2% 282 12 50.2% 8.8% 5 1.0% 185 1 22.0% 3.5% 2 22.5% 8 2.5% 66 3.% 60 3.% 3.1% 1.% 65.5% 33 6 0.2% 112 33.0% 1 26.% 26 1 0.% 1 3.6% 3.5% 366 118 32.2% 5 36.% 1.% 6 1 32.8% 12 2.1% 25.1% 336 0 38.% 12 3.8%.5%

Total 182 3 0 506 Age Race/Ethnicity Political Ideology Marital Status 65 or older White non Hispanic Latino African American Asian/ Pacific Islander Chinese Korean Q1. Do you approve or disapprove of the job your own representative in Congress is doing? Weighted 62 11 3 11 3 1 38 6 18 6 APPROVE DISAPPROVE NO OPINION Vietnamese Strongly conservative Moderately conservative Middle of the road Moderately liberal Strongly liberal Married/ Not married living together Widow/ separated/ divorced 62 8 8 1 2 8 265 2 6 3 5 6 258 2 5 35 5 18 2 35.% 256 3.8% 6 2.3% 3 33.% 1 35.% 35.5% 2 2.2% 50 6.0% 33 2.8% 2 0.% 36 35.3% 25.8% 68 3.2% 1 1.0% 3 1.% 3.0% 5 0.1% 2 20.8% 1 32.% 18.2% 1.% 6 2.6%.% 38 25.% 3.2% 2.3% 11 2.% 36.0% 11.2% 6.8% 0.2%.1% 38.% 1 22.1% 1 11.6% 66.3% 5 3.6% 1 12.% 5.0% 88 1.3% 61 68.6%.1% 5 25 26.% 3 38.8% 33 3.5% 23 3.% 8 3.8% 0 25.8% 56 28 50.1% 1 25.3% 1 2.6% 5 51.2%.2%.5% 35 118 33.3% 3.5% 82.2% 5 3 3.5% 3 35.3% 2 2.2% Never married 16 66 3.% 60 35.% 2 2.% Field Research Corporation Table

Total H.S. or less Education Household Income Congressional District Some college/ trade school College Post work Under $20,000 $20,000 $0,000 $0,000 $60,000 $0,000 $0,000 Q1. Do you approve or disapprove of the job your own representative in Congress is doing? Weighted 62 12 205 168 3 1 80 1 APPROVE DISAPPROVE NO OPINION More that $0,000 Open Democratic Incumbent Democrat Incumbent Union affiliated HH 62 161 15 166 3 1 6 2 12 53 5 38 16 1 532 80 2 35.% 256 3.8% 6 2.3% 6 36.2% 3.1% 3 26.% 62.5% 80 38.8% 63.% 63 3.6% 63 3.5% 2 2.% 5 0.8% 6 8.1% 11.0% 5 5.3% 26 26.2% 28 28.5% 5 38.% 0 3.0% 32 2.2% 26.1% 2 36.6% 3.% 2 36.2% 53 5.%.% 6 32.8% 0 50.6% 16.5% 52 1 36.% 1 36.8% 1 26.% 6 181 0.6% 163 36.6% 2 22.8% 11 165 0.1% 1 36.3%.6% 16 25.2% 3.2% 5 2.6% 26.1% 8 8.8% 5 25.2% No 5 8 3.1% 6 1.3% 12 2.6% Yes (Total) 8 2 6.8% 3.2% 1.0% Field Research Corporation Table 111