Posts tagged ‘Oregon Polling’

Oregon 2016 Senate Ballot Trend

image002

Wyden Maintained a wide lead throughout the campaign.

METHODOLOGY: Three surveys of 400 live telephone interviews of likely Oregon 2016 General election voters each were conducted October 3-6, October 17-21, and October 31-November 2, 2016. Likelihood was determined based on modeling and was validated within the questionnaire. The margin of error at the sample median is 5%.

SOURCES: Election data from Oregon Secretary of State.

Oregon 2016 Attorney General Election Key Demographics

image010

Party was the primary determinant of voting. Congressional District and gender were also important.

METHODOLOGY: Three surveys of 400 live telephone interviews of likely Oregon 2016 General election voters each were conducted October 3-6, October 17-21, and October 31-November 2, 2016. Likelihood was determined based on modeling and was validated within the questionnaire. The margin of error at the sample median is 5%.

These three surveys were then pooled to create The key demographics were determined using CHAID methodology.

Oregon 2016 Attorney General Candidate Name Familiarity Trend

image019

Rosenbaum began the name familiarity at a solid level which never increased. Crowe never had a significant name familiarity.

METHODOLOGY: Three surveys of 400 live telephone interviews of likely Oregon 2016 General election voters each were conducted October 3-6, October 17-21, and October 31-November 2, 2016. Likelihood was determined based on modeling and was validated within the questionnaire. The margin of error at the sample median is 5%.

Oregon 2016 Attorney General Ballot Trend

image010

Rosenbaum maintained a solid lead throughout the campaign. Although never much above 50%, she was never below it.

METHODOLOGY: Three surveys of 400 live telephone interviews of likely Oregon 2016 General election voters each were conducted October 3-6, October 17-21, and October 31-November 2, 2016. Likelihood was determined based on modeling and was validated within the questionnaire. The margin of error at the sample median is 5%.

SOURCES: Election data from Oregon Secretary of State.

Oregon 2016 State Treasurer Election Key Demographics

image008

Party was the primary determinant of support. Age, Congressional District, and gender were also important. Interestingly, Telfer did relatively better among non-Republican men.

METHODOLOGY: Three surveys of 400 live telephone interviews of likely Oregon 2016 General election voters each were conducted October 3-6, October 17-21, and October 31-November 2, 2016. Likelihood was determined based on modeling and was validated within the questionnaire. The margin of error at the sample median is 5%.

These three surveys were then pooled to create The key demographics were determined using CHAID methodology.

Oregon 2016 State Treasurer Candidate Name Familiarity Trend

image018

None of the candidates had much name familiarity until near the end of the campaign when Read gained significantly. This is particularly interesting because Chris Telfer had run for State Treasurer in 2010. It appears that either she didn’t gain any name familiarity from that run or that all she gained depreciated in just a few years.

METHODOLOGY: Three surveys of 400 live telephone interviews of likely Oregon 2016 General election voters each were conducted October 3-6, October 17-21, and October 31-November 2, 2016. Likelihood was determined based on modeling and was validated within the questionnaire. The margin of error at the sample median is 5%.

Oregon 2016 State Treasurer Ballot Trend

image008

Read maintained a narrow lead over Gudman throughout the campaign. It is important to note that at no time was Read’s lead greater than Telfer’s percentage.

METHODOLOGY: Three surveys of 400 live telephone interviews of likely Oregon 2016 General election voters each were conducted October 3-6, October 17-21, and October 31-November 2, 2016. Likelihood was determined based on modeling and was validated within the questionnaire. The margin of error at the sample median is 5%.

SOURCES: Election data from Oregon Secretary of State.

Oregon 2016 Secretary of State Election Key Demographics

image006

Party was the primary determinant of support. Age, income and gender were also important. Interestingly, older Democrats were less supportive of Avakian.

METHODOLOGY: Three surveys of 400 live telephone interviews of likely Oregon 2016 General election voters each were conducted October 3-6, October 17-21, and October 31-November 2, 2016. Likelihood was determined based on modeling and was validated within the questionnaire. The margin of error at the sample median is 5%.

These three surveys were then pooled to create The key demographics were determined using CHAID methodology.

Oregon 2016 Secretary of State Candidate Name Familiarity Trend

image016

Richardson maintained a statistically significant name familiarity advantage throughout the campaign. This was probably a residual from his 2014 gubernatorial bid. This is also probably a big reason for his victory.

METHODOLOGY: Three surveys of 400 live telephone interviews of likely Oregon 2016 General election voters each were conducted October 3-6, October 17-21, and October 31-November 2, 2016. Likelihood was determined based on modeling and was validated within the questionnaire. The margin of error at the sample median is 5%.

Oregon 2016 Secretary of State Ballot Trend

image006

Richardson maintained a narrow lead throughout the campaign.

METHODOLOGY: Three surveys of 400 live telephone interviews of likely Oregon 2016 General election voters each were conducted October 3-6, October 17-21, and October 31-November 2, 2016. Likelihood was determined based on modeling and was validated within the questionnaire. The margin of error at the sample median is 5%.

SOURCES: Election data from Oregon Secretary of State.