Poll: Candidates and Elected Officials Support Campaign Finance Reform; Cite Jobs/Economy as Most Important Issues
In our latest poll, conducted on behalf of PoliticalBank, we surveyed 522 candidates and elected officials across the United States. We began the survey with a simple Presidential horse race question, which yielded the following results:
While the majority of those surveyed were Republican (and weighted as such), the results show a close race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Within these results, 66% of Republicans indicated their support for Trump, while 72% of Democrats support Clinton. On both sides, roughly 22% indicated that they will cross party lines to vote for the opposing candidate. Independent voters broke for Trump, at 43%.
Next, we asked candidates the following question: “Thinking about campaign finance reform in the United States generally, what is your opinion of movements that promote financial transparency and mitigate the influence of private contributors over candidates?”
Respondents showed overwhelming support:
We also asked respondents what they believe to be the most important issue facing voters in 2016. Candidates and officials largely gave the economy top importance, with national security in a distant second:
|Jobs and the Economy||49%|
As might be expected, Trump supporters cited national security as a top concern at higher rates than Clinton supporters – 41% and 12%, respectively.
If you are a candidate or if you are thinking about running for office, over 65% of the Candidates we polled find running a campaign “somewhat” or “very” difficult. The good news is that PoliticalBank.com simplifies things – click here to learn more.
This poll was tricky to weight, since we had to consider the levels and jurisdictions at which candidates are elected across the country, which vary considerably. For instance, Georgia would be given a relatively higher weight than states of comparable size, given its extreme number of counties and other sub-state levels of government. In this survey, levels of jurisdictional integration are negatively correlated to weight coefficients.
Here’s a brief summary of how we developed the weighting benchmarks:
- States were first grouped into several regions by geography and political similarities
- Count lists were developed for four variables within each state: total cities, total counties, total seats in state legislature, and congressional seats
- Standardized values were developed for each variable, state-by-state, producing one standardized value for each state, where the total of all values = 200
- Standardized values were added for each region and expressed as percentages
- Original gender weight was developed from this study by Pew Research; region was applied as a pre-weight to the final gender benchmark
- Party ID weight was developed using a combination of internal data on candidates and public data on the composition of state-level elected officials