THE INDEPENDENT AND NON-PARTISAN STATEWIDE SURVEY OF
PUBLIC OPINION ESTABLISHED IN 1947 BY MERVIN IJ. FIEllJ.
234 Front Street
San Francisco 94111
(415) 392-5763
COPYRIGHT 1982 BY THE FIELD INSTITUTE. FOR PUBLICATION BY SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
Release #1186
Release date: Wednesday, September 22, 1982
GOP VOTERS WOULD LIKE TO SEE
REAGAN RUN AGAIN IN '84.
KENNEDY LEADS PACK OF
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL
HOPEFULS.
by Mervin D. Field
Director, The California Poll
IMPORTANT: Contract for this service is
subject to revocation if publication or
broadcast takes place before release date
or if contents of report are divulged to
persons outside of subscriber staff prior
to release time.
(ISSN 0195-4520)
Although the 1984 Presidential election is more than two years away,
many prospective candidates have already made it evident that they are
jockeying for favorable positions should they decide to make a formal run.
Speculation as to who will be the candidates will become even more intense
following the 1982 Congressional elections on November 2.
Pollsters add to all this political ferment by providing early
measures of the popularity of some of the more visible presidential
hopefuls.
The latest California Poll survey shows that Republicans would like
to see Ronald Reagan run for another term.
However, if Reagan decides
not to run, Republicans in this state are very familiar with Vice Presi­
dent George Bush and Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and each gets
considerable support as possible Republican presidential nominees.
On the Democratic side, Senator Edward Kennedy, former President
Jimmy Carter, former Vice President Walter Mondale and Senator Alan
Cranston are all well known and, except for Carter, all have quite
favorable images in this state.
When these men along with others are
offered to a sample of California Democrats, Kennedy leads in preference
for the Democratic Presidential nomination by a wide margin.
In this survey a cross section of California voters was asked to
choose between Ronald Reagan and a list of Democratic possibilities in a
series of simulated 1984 presidential match-ups.
Reagan is the winner in
each edging Kennedy by four points, Mondale and Glenn each by eight
points and Cranston by ten points.
When Carter is now paired against the
incumbent who defeated him in California by 17 points in 1980, he again
loses to Reagan, this time by 29 points.
The California Poll has operated continuously since 1947 as an independent, impartial media sponsored public opinion news service. The Poll is one of the
services provided by The Field Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan organization devoted to the study of public opinion and behavior on social and political
issues. The Field Institute is dedicated to encouraging the widest possible dissemination of social survey findings to the publ.ic and for the public benefit.
The Institute receives its support from academic, governmental, media, and private sources.
#1186
The California Poll
page two
Nearly two out of three rank-and-file Republicans (62%) say they
would like Reagan to seek re-election, while just 23% feel he should not
run.
Republicans were also asked to give their preference for other GOP
hopefuls should Reagan not run in 1984.
In this situation, Bush receives
the support of 39% and Baker is the current choice of 30%.
Three other
Republicans were listed and their proportion of support is as follows:
New York COngressman Jack Kemp (13%), former Secretary of State Alexander
Hiag (9%) and North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms (3%).
Bush, Baker and Haig are all widely recognized by Republicans in
this state.
Bush currently is known to 91% of the GOP rank-and-file,
Haig obtains 89% identification and Baker 79%.
The images of Bush and
Baker among those who have an opinion are highly positive with greater
than three times as many Republicans rating each favorably as unfavorably.
The impression of Haig among Republicans, on the other hand, is quite
negative with 64% of GaPers holding an unfavorable opinion of him and 25%
a favorable view.
Haig also receives the largest proportion of negative
votes (45%) when Republicans are asked who they would have the most
difficulty voting for as their party's 1984 Presidential nominee.
Impression of possible Republican candidates
for Presiden.t (among Republicans)
Have an opinion
of this person
%
Bush
91
Haig
Baker
Impression is ...
Favorable Unfavorable
%
%
Don't know enough
about this person
%
69
22
89
25
64
9
11
79
63
16
21
Helms
53
22
31
47
Kemp
52
36
16
48
Preferences in 1984 Republican nomination
(if Reagan.decides not to run)
for_Presi~ent
First
Choice
%
Bush
Most difficulty
voting for
%
39
5
Baker
30
5
Kemp
13
7
Haig
9
45
Helms
3
21
Undecided
6
17
Kennedy at this time leads other Democrats by a wide margin for his
9arty's nomination.
Kennedy gets 43% of the preferences, far outdistanc­
ing Mondale with 17%, Cranston at 14% and Ohio Senator John Glenn with
11%.
Kennedy's current popularity is also exemplified when voters are
asked to give their overall impressions of each of the Democratic con­
tenders.
Kennedy is known to 97% of registered Democrats in this state,
the highest name recognition of any listed.
Of those who have an opinion
of him, twice as many Democrats say they regard Kennedy favorably (65%)
as have an unfavorable view of him (32%).
#1186
The California Poll
page three
Three other Democrats are known to overwhelming majorities of party
voters.
These include Carter with 96% recognition, Mondale at 91% and
Cranston with 89%.
Glenn is known to 60% of the California Democrats.
Party followers have a relatively high regard for each, with the
exception of Carter.
At present, nearly twice as many Californians say
they have a negative impression of the former President as have a positive
opinion of him.
carter is also mentioned most as the candidate that
Democrats would have the most difficulty voting for as their 1984 nominee.
Impression of possible Democratic candidates
for President (among Democrats)
Have an opinion
of th is person
%
Impression is ...
Favorable unfavorable
%
%
Don't know enough
about this person
%
97
65
32
3
Carter
96
33
63
4
Mondale
91
58
33
9
Cranston
89
55
34
11
Glenn
60
39
21
40
Hart
22
7
78
12
82
11
87
Kennedy
Askew
18
15
6
Hollings
13
2
Preferences in 1984 Democratic
nomination for President
First
choice
%
Kennedy
Most difficulty
voting for
%
43
15
Mondale
17
8
Cranston
14
8
Glenn
11
4
7
31
Carter
Hart
2
2
Askew
1
7
Hollings
*
6
Undecided
5
19
*Less than one half of 1%
The California Poll
page four
Simulated
#1186
pa~r~ngs
between the leading Democratic hopefuls and
Republican Reagan in the 1984 Presidential Election among a cross
section of all voters reveal that Reagan leads Kennedy by four points,
Mondale and Glenn by eight points, Cranston by ten and Carter by twentynine points.
Reagan
%
Kennedy
Democratic
opponent
Undecided
%
%
49
45
6
Mondale
51
43
6
Glenn
48
40
12
Cranston
51
41
8
Carter
59
30
11
Hart
56
28
16
Hollings
54
22
24
Askew
54
21
25
-30­
INFORMATION ABOUT THE SURVEY
#1186
SAMPLE DETAILS
The survey was taken among a representative cross section of the California
adult public. Interviewing was done by telephone August 23 through 27,
1982 during the late afternoon and evening. The overall sample consisted
of 1,007 interviews, of whom 810 said that they were registered to vote.
Impressions of and preferences for the Democratic Presidential candidates
are based on 418 registered Democrats.
Impressions of and preferences for
the Republican Presidential candidates are based on 309 registered
Republicans.
In order to cover a broad range of topics and still minimize possible res­
pondent fatigue, the overall sample was divided into two approximately
equal sized matching subsamples on the pairings between Reagan and the
leading Democratic Presidential hopefuls.
subsample A consisted of 402
registered voters statewide, while subsample B consisted of 408 registered
voters statewide.
QUESTIONS ASKED:
REPUBLICANS ONLY
The 1984 Presidential election is more than two years away but already
there is a lot of talk about the possible candidates. Do you think
President Ronald Reagan should or should not run for a second term?
Let's support President Reagan decided not to run.
I am going to read a
list of other Republicans who might be candidates. As I read each please
tell me whether your opinion of him is favorable or unfavorable or whether
you don't know enough about that person to have an opinion.
Is your
opinion of
favorable or unfavorable or don't you know enough about
him to have an opinion?
Suppose President Reagan decided not to run and you were voting in a
Republican presidential primary today and the candidates were (SEE RELEASE
FOR NAMES)--who would be your first choice? Who on the list would you
have the most difficulty voting for?
DEMOCRATS ONLY
The 1984 presidential election is more than two years away but already
there is a lot of talk about the possible candidates.
I am going to read
to you some names of possible Democratic candidates and as I read each
one, please tell me whether your overall opinion of him is favorable or
unfavorable or whether you don't know enough about him to have an opinion.
Is your opinion of
favorable or unfavorable or don't you know
enough about him to have an opinion?
Suppose you were voting in a Democratic presidential primary today and
the candidates were (SEE RELEASE FOR NAMES), who would be your first
choice? Who on this list would you have the most difficulty voting for?
EVERYONE
Next, I am going to read you different pairs of possible Democratic and
Republican candidates for President for the 1984 General Election. For
each pairing please tell me which candidate you would choose if the
election for President were being held today.
"How about
, the
Republican against
, the Democrat? Who would you prefer?
(SEE
RELEASE FOR PAIRINGS)
Poll Operation and Sponsorship
The California Poll has operated continuou~ly since
1947 as an independent, non-partisan media spon­
sored public opinion news service. The Poll is owned
by Field Research Corporation and since 1976 h~s
been operated by The Field Institute,.a non-pro.ht,
non-partisan research group engaged. III ~ond.uctlllg
studies of public opinion on issues of social slgmflcance.
The Institute receives its financial support from
academic, governmental, media and private sources.
Survey Method
Interviews in this survey were made by telephone.
Sample homes are drawn in accordance with a
probability sample design that gives all areas of the
state and all neighborhoods a properly proportIOn­
ate chance to be included. Telephone numbers are
randomly generated by computer in proporti<:,n to
local prefix allocation density to remove non-listed
telephone biases. Up to four calls are made to each
number at different times to reach one adult III each
household. An adult respondent is selected for the
interview using an objective procedure to provide a
balance of age and sex.
Accuracy of the Findings
Several factors must be considered in assessing
the accuracy of the findings in this and other
California Poll reports. One is the amount of toler­
ance in the findings due to the presence of random
variations inherent in the sampling process itself.
Another are any inaccuracies caused by judgemental
factors such as question wording and sample
design; and a third are the effects of external events
Sampling Tolerance
The amount of sampling tolerance in these survey
findings can be estimated quite precisely by the use
of well-tested statistical formulas. The California
Poll uses an advanced method known as replicated
sampling that provides an empirically determined
estimate of the range of so-called sampling error
for each item of information developed by the survey.
This method takes account of the size of the sample, the
degree of variability in response to each item, sample
design effects (clustering, weighting), and the effects
of variable interviewer and coder performance.
An estimate of the sampling error range for this
survey is shown in the table below. The sampling
tolerance has been calculated at two statistical
confidence levels which are customarily used by
social scientists - the 95'70 and the 99'7'0 level. To
use the table, first select the sample size on which
the percentage in question is based. Then note the
plus and minus range of sampling tolerance for the
degree of confidence desired and apply this to the
percentage figure. The resulting "high" and "low"
estimates show the range within which we can have
95'7'0 (or 99'7'0) confidence that if the whole popula­
tion of the state had been surveyed with the same
questionnaire, the results of such a complete cov­
erage would fall between the two figures obtained
from the data in the table.
The sample tolerance figures shown in the table
are average figures derived from the actual experi­
ence of a number of recent surveys. They represent
maximum tolerances for the sample bases shown,
Le., for survey findings where the division of opinion
is around 50'70-50'70. Survey findings that show a
more one-sided distribution of opinion, such as
70'7'0- 30'70 or 90'7'0-10'7'0, are us ually subject to slightly
lower sampling tolerance than those shown in
the table.
TI
Table of Sampling Tolerances for Data
from Surveys of The California Poll
Plus/minus percentage range of sampling tolerance at _
Sample Size
95'7'0 confidence
99'7'0 confidence
1200. . . . . . .
3.0. . . .
4.0
1000.
3.3 . .
4.3
800. . .
3.7. . .
4.9
600. . . . . . . . . .. 4.2...
5.6
~O..
5.2.......
6.9
200. . . . .
7.5
9.9
50. . . . .
. . 15.0
19.8
Other Possible Sources of Error
In addition to sampling error, there are other
important sources of potential inaccuracies in these
(and in other) poll findings. These sources include
the effects of possibly biased or misleading ques­
tions, possible systematic omission of relevant seg­
ments of the population from the survey sample, and
the effects of significant events that occur during
or after the time the survey interviews are made.
There is no standard measure of these effects; each
must be evaluated judgmentally. Furthermore, since
the influence of these factors on the ultimate accuracy
of the survey findings may be many times greater
than the amount of sampling error, it is important
that they also be carefully weighed.
So that the reader will have information needed
to judge the possible importance of these effects,
The California Poll provides this bulletin with each
release, describing the question(s) used, the size and
type of sample used, and the dates of interviewing.
The California Poll has an excellent record for
accuracy in reflecting public opinion during its 33
year history. The staff of The California Poll takes
great care to formulate questions which we feel are
objective and unbiased and to carefully supervise
the data gathering phases and other research oper­
ations upon which the Poll's findings are based.
Nevertheless, users of this (and any other public
opinion polling data) should be continually mindful
of all of the factors that influence any poll's accuracy
Sampling error is not the only criterion, and we
caution against citing only the sampling error figure
alone as the measure of a survey's accuracy, since
to do so tends to create an impression of a greater
degree of precision than has in fact been achieved.
Suggested copy for editors to use
when presenting California Poll data
in publication or newscast
Surveys of the kind reported here by The
California Poll are subject to varia bility due to
sampling factors and to other possible sources
of influence on their accuracy. The statewide
sample results shown in this report are sub­
ject to a sampling tolerance of plus or minus
approximately _ _ percentage points. The
(reader) (viewer) (listener) should also be
aware, however, that there are other possible
sources of error for which precise estimates
cannot be calculated. For example, different
results might have been obtained from differ­
ent question wording, and undetected flaws in
the way the sampling and interviewing proce­
dures were carried out could have a significant
effect on the findings. Good polling practices
diminish the chances of such errors, but they
can never be entirely ruled out. It is also pos­
sible, of course, that events occuring since the
time the interviews were conducted could have
changed the opinions reported here.