Lindholm Company Blog

This is interesting. Lower income, below $30,000, and upper income, above $75,000, are the most likely to support the stadium plan. Middle-income voters, $30,000 to $75,000, were more likely to be opposed. It is possible that this has something to do with the likely property value increase, vs. the tax encumbrances, that the stadium would bring.

Question:
Shall the City of Santa Clara adopt Ordinance 17.20 leasing City property for a professional football stadium and other events; no use of City General or Enterprise funds for construction; no new taxes for residents for stadium; Redevelopment Agency funds capped for construction; private party pays all construction cost overruns; no City/Agency obligation for stadium operating/maintenance; private party payment of projected fair market rent; and additional funds for senior/youth/library/recreation to City’s General Fund?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? IF YES/NO: Is that strongly or somewhat? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?

METHODOLOGY
The survey consisted of 200 live telephone interviews of City of Santa Clara likely June 2010 Primary voters conducted February 15-16, 2010. The margin of error at the sample median was 7 percent for each of the surveys. Quotas and/or weights were established by gender, age, party, region, and vote history as part of the turnout model.

CHAID (Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection) was used to construct the graphic using demographic data about the survey respondents.

For a larger version of this map, please see: 49ers-by-city-of-santa-clara-zip

The greatest support for the measure is among those who live in the northern part of the City of Santa Clara. They would live nearest the proposed stadium.

 The overwhelming percentage of voters in the City of Santa Clara live in only three ZIP codes.

Question:
Shall the City of Santa Clara adopt Ordinance 17.20 leasing City property for a professional football stadium and other events; no use of City General or Enterprise funds for construction; no new taxes for residents for stadium; Redevelopment Agency funds capped for construction; private party pays all construction cost overruns; no City/Agency obligation for stadium operating/maintenance; private party payment of projected fair market rent; and additional funds for senior/youth/library/recreation to City’s General Fund?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? IF YES/NO: Is that strongly or somewhat? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?

METHODOLOGY
The survey consisted of 200 live telephone interviews of City of Santa Clara likely June 2010 Primary voters conducted February 15-16, 2010. The margin of error at the sample median was 7 percent for each of the surveys. Quotas and/or weights were established by gender, age, party, region, and vote history as part of the turnout model.

Approval rates for the BART to San Jose project remain exceedingly high.

Question:
Do you approve or disapprove of building BART to San Jose? IF APPROVE/DISAPPROVE: Is that strongly or somewhat? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?

METHODOLOGY
The surveys each consisted of 400 live telephone interviews of Santa Clara County likely June 2010 Primary voters conducted June 16-18, 2009, October 26-28, 2009, and February 15-17, 2010. The margin of error at the sample median is 5 percent. Quotas and/or weights were established by gender, age, party, region, and vote history as part of the turnout model.

This map provides a preliminary look, based on 2008 data, of how state legislative seats will be shifted due to the 2011 redistricting. The more red the county the greater (hotter) the percentage increase or the more blue the smaller (cooler) the percentage increase in estimated population between the 2000 Census and the July 1, 2008 population estimate. Please keep in mind, first, that the map presents are only relative changes and, second, that geographic size does not always correlate to population size.

The counties expected to gain the most representation in the state legislature are (in house seats):
Delaware 46%
Franklin 41%
Warren  41%
Butler  21%
Medina  16%
Fairfield 16%
Lorain  14%
Clermont 13%

The counties expected to lose the most representation in the state legislature are (in house seats):
Cuyahoga -109%
Montgomery  -27%
Mahoning  -19%
Lucas   -17%
Trumbull  -14%

The senate’s gains and losses would be proportionate, only smaller.

Ohio is expected to lose two congressional districts.
Despite the loss statewide, there would be some counties that would actually gain congressional representation.
The counties with the greatest gain would be:
Delaware 6%
Warren  4%

The counties with the greatest loss would be:
Cuyahoga -42%
Hamilton -15%
Montgomery -14%
Franklin -12%
Lucas  -11%
Summit  -10%

Please remember that redistricting can be a quirky process and that these estimates are population weights only, not measurements of actual political power after the redistricting process. Future posts are planned that will provide updated information and analysis as the 2011 reapportionment approaches.

Source of data: U. S. Census
Estimates of congressional seat gains and losses: Polidata, 12/23/09 press release.

There was a statistically significant increase in approval between October 2009 and February 2010. The approval had stayed constant between June and October 2009.

If one looks for the news that could have generated this movement, the most likely is Mayor Chuck Reed’s increasing involvement in support of the A’s moving to San Jose. Mayor Reed has extremely high favorability ratings. Second, there were the December stories, first, about the creation of a pro-San Jose Giants group, which was immediately labeled as an “astroturf” group and, second, the actions of the San Francisco City Attorney to keep San Jose under of the San Francisco Giants territorial rights. It is possible that these either increased awareness of the issue or backfired by building local support or both.

Question:
Do you approve or disapprove of moving the A’s baseball team to San Jose? IF APPROVE/DISAPPROVE: Is that strongly or somewhat? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?

METHODOLOGY
The surveys each consisted of 200 live telephone interviews of City of San Jose likely June 2010 Primary voters conducted June 16-18, 2009, October 26-28, 2009, and February 15-17, 2010. The margin of error at the sample median was 7 percent for each of the surveys. Quotas and/or weights were established by gender, age, party, region, and vote history as part of the turnout model.

Hill was a former statewide elected official. Previously, Hill was a state legislator from Salem. Hill was not supported by the Democratic establishment.

The critical importance for Democrats of winning the Portland media market is evident in this map. The Portland media market covers all of Oregon except from Lane County (Eugene) south in western Oregon, the northeast corner of the state, and the southern tier of counties in central and eastern Oregon.

The adage of “dominate the dominant media market” held true for Democrats. Hill did best in Marion and Polk counties, in the rest of the Willamette Valley outside of Portland, and in northeastern Oregon.

Oregon 2002 Democratic Primary Statewide Results
Kulongoski 48.21%
Hill  26.05%
Stein  21.60%
Other   4.14%

Map range consists of shades of green with more intense green indicating more intense support.

For a general discussion of this contest, the statewide percentages for each of the three major candidates. and a map of which counties were won by which candidate please see this post: http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=1789

Source of election returns: Oregon Secretary of State

The upcoming 49er’s stadium ballot measure on the City of Santa Clara ballot starts off in a head heat: 45% yes and 45% no.

The ballot question was the first question in the survey.

Question:
Shall the City of Santa Clara adopt Ordinance 17.20 leasing City property for a professional football stadium and other events; no use of City General or Enterprise funds for construction; no new taxes for residents for stadium; Redevelopment Agency funds capped for construction; private party pays all construction cost overruns; no City/Agency obligation for stadium operating/maintenance; private party payment of projected fair market rent; and additional funds for senior/youth/library/recreation to City’s General Fund?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure? IF YES/NO: Is that strongly or somewhat? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?

METHODOLOGY
The survey consisted of 200 live telephone interviews of City of Santa Clara likely June 2010 Primary voters conducted February 15-16, 2010. The margin of error at the sample median was 7 percent for each of the surveys. Quotas and/or weights were established by gender, age, party, region, and vote history as part of the turnout model.

Source of ballot question wording: City of Santa Clara.

 The urban vs. rural split evident in the statewide results by county for Measure 67 is clearly visible in Lane County. There is a high correlation between the vote for measures 66 and 67 at the precinct level.

For a more detailed map: large-lane-county-m67

The support for Measure 67 falls much more along the lines of liberal vs. moderate/conservative in the Eugene-Springfield metro area. There is a high correlation between the vote for measures 66 and 67 at the precincct level.

For a more detailed map: large-lane-metro-m67

The demographic areas of the Eugene-Springfield metro which are most comparable to eastern Multnomah County, were relatively more opposed to the measures.

Source of precinct geography: Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Source of election results: Lane County Elections.

The urban vs. rural split evident in the statewide results by county for Measure 66 is clearly visible in Lane County.

For a more detailed map: large-lane-county-m66

Unlike in the Portland area, the support for Measure 66 falls much more along the lines of liberal vs. moderate/conservative in the Eugene-Springfield metro area.

For a more detailed map: large-lane-metro-m66

Source of precinct geography: Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Source of election results: Lane County Elections.

In general, Portland and neighboring areas were the most supportive of Measure 67 and the more suburban and rural areas of the Tri-County region were the most opposed. The pattern is highly correlated with that of Measure 66.

For a more detailed map: large-tri-county-m671

In general, central Portland was the most supportive of Measure 67, but the support was not consistent throughout the area. The pattern is highly correlated with that of Measure 66.

The strong support from eastern Multnomah County for both measures 66 and 67 is interesting. There is a wide mix of demographic groups supporting both measures.

 For a more detailed map: large-tri-county-portland-m671

Source of precinct geography: Metro. Source of election results: Clackamas County Elections, Multnomah County Elections, and Washington County Elections.