St. Cloud State University SURVEY

2002

STATEWIDE SURVEY OF MINNESOTA ADULTS

BEST VIEWED WITH INTERNET EXPLORER

poliCY questions

October 2002

Prepared

by

Dr. Stephen Frank

Dr. Steven Wagner

Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes

Principal Investigators

SCSU Survey

Social Science Research Institute

College of Social Sciences

St. Cloud State University

St. Cloud, Minnesota

Drs. Frank, Wagner and Kukoleca are members of the Midwest Association of Public Opinion Research (MAPOR) and the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and subscribe to the code of ethics of the AAPOR.

I. History and Mission of the Survey

The SCSU Survey is an ongoing survey research extension of the Social Science Research Institute in the College of Social Science at St. Cloud State University. The SCSU Survey performs its research in the form of telephone interviews. Telephone surveys are but one of the many types of research employed by researchers to collect data randomly. The telephone survey is now the instrument of choice for a growing number of researchers.

Dr. Steve Frank began the SCSU Survey in 1980 conducting several omnibus surveys a year of central Minnesota adults in conjunction with his Political Science classes. The omnibus surveys are now done once a year. In addition to questions focusing on the research of the faculty directors, clients can buy into the survey or contract for specialized surveys.

Presently, the omnibus surveys have continued, but have shifted to a primary statewide focus. These statewide surveys are conducted once a year in the fall and focus on statewide issues such as election races, current events, and other important issues that are present in the state of Minnesota. Besides the annual fall survey, the SCSU Survey conducts an annual spring survey of SCSU students on various issues such as campus safety, alcohol and drug use, race, etc. Lastly, the SCSU Survey conducts contract surveys for various public and private sector clients. The Survey provides a useful service for the people and institutions of the State of Minnesota by furnishing valid data of the opinions, behaviors, and characteristics of adult Minnesotans.

The primary mission of the SCSU Survey is to serve the academic community and various clients through its commitment to high quality survey research and to provide education and experiential opportunities to researchers and students. We strive to assure that all SCSU students and faculty directors contribute to the research process, as all are essential in making a research project successful. This success is measured by our ability to obtain high quality survey data that is timely, accurate, and reliable while maintaining an environment that promotes the professional and personal growth of each staff member. The survey procedures used by the SCSU Survey adhere to the highest quality academic standards. The SCSU Survey maintains the highest ethical standards in its procedures and methods. Both faculty and student directors demonstrate integrity and respect for dignity in all interactions with colleagues, clients, researchers, and survey participants.

II. Survey Staff

The Survey’s faculty directors are Dr. Steve Frank (SCSU Professor of Political Science), Dr. Steven Wagner (SCSU Associate Professor of Public and Non-Profit Administration) and Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes (SCSU Assistant Professor of Political Science). The faculty directors are members of the Midwest Association Of Public Opinion Research (M.A.P.O.R.) and the American Association Of Public Opinion Research (A.A.P.O.R.). The directors subscribe to the code of ethics of A.A.P.O.R.

Stephen I. Frank

Dr. Frank holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science from Washington State University. Dr. Frank teaches courses in American Politics, Public Opinion and Research Methods at St. Cloud State University. Dr. Frank started the SCSU Survey in 1980 and has played a major role in the development, administration and analysis of over 150 telephone surveys for local and state governments, school districts and a variety of nonprofit agencies. Dr. Frank has completed extensive postgraduate work in survey research at the University of Michigan. Dr. Frank recently coauthored with Dr. Wagner and published by Harcourt College Press, “We Shocked the World!” A Case Study of Jesse Ventura’s Election as Governor of Minnesota, Revised Edition. Dr. Frank serves the SCSU Department of Political Science as it chairperson.

Steven C. Wagner

Dr. Wagner holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and a Master of Public Administration from Northern Illinois University. Dr. Wagner earned his Bachelor of Science in Political Science from Illinois State University. Dr. Wagner teaches courses in American Politics and Public and Nonprofit Management at St. Cloud State University. Dr. Wagner joined the SCSU Survey in 1997. Before coming to SCSU, Dr. Wagner taught in Kansas where he engaged in community-based survey research and before that was staff researcher for the U.S. General Accounting Office. Dr. Wagner has written many papers on taxation, health care delivery and state politics and has published articles on voting behavior, federal funding of local services and organizational decision making. Dr. Wagner, with Dr. Frank, recently completed a second text on Minnesota’s Governor, Jesse Ventura.

Michelle K. Hammes

Dr. Kukoleca Hammes holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and a Masters in Political Science from the State University of New York at Binghamton. Dr. Kukoleca Hammes earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Niagara University. Kr. Kukoleca Hammes’ is a comparativist with an area focus on North America and Western Europe. Her substantive focus is representative governmental institutions. She teaches courses in American Government, Introduction to Ideas and Institutions, Western European Politics, and a Capstone in Political Science at St. Cloud State University. Dr. Kukoleca Hammes has recently joined the survey team and will be using her extensive graduate school training in political methodology to aid in questionnaire construction and results analysis.

Ms. Laurie Hoogeveen and Ms. Angela Jabs serve as senior supervising student director. Other student directors are Ms. Tesha Peterson, Ms. Marisol Rodriguez, Mr. Dave Lundy, Ms. Renate Schultz, Ms. Julie Herbst and Mr. Paul Ben-Yehuda. Mr. Tim Claason provides network and software technical support to the survey laboratory.

After five or more hours of training and screening approximately 50 students from Political Science 201 (Research Methods) taught by Dr. Frank and Political Science 195 (Democratic Citizenship) taught by Dr. Kukoleca Hammes completed the calling. Faculty directors monitored the calling shifts. Student directors conducted both general training sessions and one-on-one training sessions as well as monitoring all calling shifts.

III. Methodology

The SCSU Survey is operated out of Stewart Hall 324. It is also known as the CATI Lab, which stands for Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing Lab. It is equipped with 13 interviewer stations that each includes a computer, a phone, and a headset. In addition to the interviewer stations, there is the Supervisor Station, which is used to monitor the survey while it is in progress. The SCSU Survey has its own server designated solely for the use of the survey.

The SCSU Survey is licensed to use Sawtooth Software’s Ci3 Questionnaire Authoring Version 4.1, a state-of-the-art windows-based computer-assisted interviewing package. This program allow us to develop virtually any type of questionnaire while at the same time programming edit and consistency checks and other quality control measures to insure the most valid data. Interviewing with Ci3 offers many advantages:

1. Complete control of what the interviewer sees;

2. Automatic skip or branch patterns based on previous answers, combinations of answers, or even mathematical computations performed on answers;

3. Randomization of response categories or question order;

4. Customized questionnaires using respondents’ previous responses, and,

5. Incorporation of data from the sample directly into the sample database.

6. All interview stations are networked for complete, ongoing sample management.

7. Data is updated immediately, ensuring maximum data integrity and allowing clients to get progress reports anytime. Data is reviewed for quality and consistency.

8. Answers are entered directly into the computer. Keypunching is eliminated, thus decreasing human error. Data analysis can start immediately.

9. The computer handles call record keeping automatically, allowing interviewers and supervisors to focus on the interviewing task.

10. Callbacks are handled by the computer and made on a schedule. We call each number ten times. Interrupted surveys are easily completed. Persons who are willing to be interviewed can do so when it is convenient to them, improving the quality of their responses.

11. Calls are made at various times during the week (Monday through Thursday, 4:30 to 9:30) and on weekends (Sunday, 2:30 to 9:30) to maximize contacts and ensure equal opportunities to respond among various demographic groups.

12. CATI maintains full and detailed records, including the number of attempts made to each number and the disposition of each attempt.

The survey was administered Monday through Sunday, not Friday or Saturday between October 14 and October 27, 2002. Most calls were made after 4:30 PM weekdays and during the afternoon on Sunday, October 20 and 27.

Several steps were taken to ensure that the telephone sample of Minnesota adults who were eighteen years of age or older was representative of the larger population. Survey Sampling Inc. of Fairfield, Connecticut prepared the random digit sample of telephone numbers. Random digit dialing makes available changed, new, and unlisted numbers. Drawing numbers from a telephone book may skip as many as 20 percent of Minnesota households. Within each household the particular respondent was determined in a statistically unbiased fashion. This means that the selection process alternated between men and women and older and younger respondents. Few substitutions were allowed. In order to reach hard-to-get respondents each number was called up to ten times over different days and times and appointments made as necessary to interview the designated respondent at her/his convenience.

We have found Survey Sampling a particularly efficient sample production company. They generate samples of very high quality because they:

n construct a comprehensive database of all telephone working blocks which actually represent residential telephones;

n obtain, update and cross check working block information from the local (U.S. West) telephone company;

n confirm the estimated number of residential telephones with each working block, excluding sparsely populated working blocks (industry standard is to exclude those blocks with less than three known working residential telephones out of the 100 possible numbers);

n assign working blocks known to contain residential telephones to geographic areas bases on zip code and most recent updates of census data;

n mark each working block for demographic targeting;

n check each RDD number against a list of known business telephone numbers and generate new numbers as necessary; and,

n arrange the ending sample in a random order to eliminate potential calling order bias.

In samples of 613 interviews the overall sample error due to sampling and other random effects is approximately plus/minus 3.9 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that if one were to have drawn 20 samples of the state and administered the same instrument it would be expected that the overall findings would be greater/lesser than 3.9 percent only one time in twenty. However, in all sample surveys there are other possible sources of error for which precise estimates cannot be calculated. These include interviewer and coder error, respondent misinterpretation, and analysis errors. When analysis is made of sub-samples such as respondents who are Republicans or when the sample is broken down by variables such as gender the sample error may be larger.

The demographics of the sample match census and other known characteristics of the larger state population very well. Usually surveys have to employ a statistical technique called weighting on demographics such as sex. Most surveys usually over-sample females. However, the ratio of male to female adults in the sample is 49 percent to 51 percent, which almost perfectly matches the adult population. Other variables such as household income, political party affiliation and employment all closely match what is known of the Minnesota adult population. Therefore, weighting was not necessary.

The cooperation rate of the survey was 65 percent. This is above the average for professional marketing firms. When the SCSU Survey conducts specialized contract surveys, we use a smaller, more skilled group of student interviewers and the completion rate ranges often approach 80+ percent. Cooperation rate means that once an eligible household was reached, almost six of ten respondents agreed to participate in the survey.

The total survey consisted of 53 variables. Additional material on the survey's methodology and findings are available by contacting Steve Frank, Steven Wagner, or Michelle Kukoleca Hammes. Contact information can be found on the back page of this report.

Table 1: Calling Record
Disposition Record	Frequency
Completed Calls	613
Not Working Numbers	1037
Not Eligible - Respondent not available during the period of the study, language problems, hearing problems, not a Minnesota resident, cabin phone, illness, etc.	124
Callbacks - Appointments made but contact could not be made with designated respondent.	603
Refusals - Attempt to re-contact and convert refusals to a completion was made for most refusals.	337
Answering Machine - Live contact could not be made even after nine calls.	202
Business Phone	314
No Answers - Probable non-working numbers but some may be households on vacation, etc.	282
Fax/Modem	3
Busy	49
Call Blocking	215
Partial - Complete except for demographics	1
Partial - Incomplete, more than demographics left.	3
Total Calls Placed	3923

V. Substantive Summary of Findings

In this fall’s survey we asked a series of questions dealing with policy issues facing the state of Minnesota. Among these were questions regarding the Minnesota Twins and stadium funding, improvements of transportation infrastructure such as roads and light rail, and concerns regarding ordinances governing smoking and the sale of alcohol. This section summarizes some of the main findings. The following sections show tables and graphs indicating the full range of data on each question.

MinnesotaTwins: The data indicates that a large majority of Minnesotans feel that the Twins are an important asset to keep in the state. This may not be surprising considering the record achieved by the team this year. However, when asked how a new stadium should be paid for in order to keep the Twins in Minnesota, around 73% of respondents indicated that private money should pay for either all or part of a new stadium. In addition, 22% of respondents felt that the current stadium is good enough.

Smoking Ordinances: About 20% of Minnesota adults polled said that they smoke. We also asked how they felt about government ordinances that would ban smoking in bars and restaurants. There seemed to be a good deal of support for banning smoking in restaurants, but not nearly as much support for banning smoking in bars. There also seems to be a significant group of people who do not care whether there is or isn’t an ordinance banning smoking. Also, people overwhelming indicated that if their favorite restaurant were to ban smoking it would not change the frequency at which they choose to visit the restaurant.

Sale of Alcohol: When respondents were asked whether they favor selling wine in grocery stores, they were pretty evenly split between those that favor selling wine in grocery stores and those that oppose it. In addition, there was also a fair number of people who indicated that they did not care whether grocery stores were allowed to sell wine or not. Correspondingly, there seems to be a split among those that want to sees bars be able to stay open and serve alcohol past 1 o’clock in the morning and those that don’t. On both of these issues there doesn’t seem to be a clear majority for either side.

Transportation Issues: A large majority of people (82%) favor increased spending for roads and a smaller majority (54%) favor spending on light rail. To pay for improvements to roads, Minnesotans feel that it should be paid for by a combination of borrowing money and raising revenue through tolls and additional taxes. To pay for light rail, a majority of Minnesotans want to see it paid for by ticket revenue and state and local government funding.

V. Legislative Policy Questions

Table 2: Importance of Twins
“How important is it to you personally to keep the Minnesota Twins in Minnesota? Is it very important, somewhat important, not important, or not at all important?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Very Important	176	29
Somewhat Important	243	40
Not Important	89	14
Not at all Important	100	16
Don’t Know	4	1
Total	612	100

Figure 1: Importance of Twins

Table 3: Pay for a New Stadium
“It is widely suggested that the long-term presence of the Minnesota Twins in Minnesota is not possible without a new baseball stadium. If a new stadium is built, do you personally think the stadium should be funded by:” (respondent read choices by interviewer)
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
The private sector only, such as the team owner, players or other private donors	241	39
The state of Minnesota only	5	1
Local government only	9	2
A combination of private funds and state and local governments	205	34
The current stadium is fine	137	22
Don’t Know	15	2
Total	612	100

Figure 2: Pay for a New Stadium

Table 4: Smoke Cigarettes
“Do you smoke cigarettes?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Yes	120	20
No	493	80
Total	613	100

Figure 3: Smoke Cigarettes

Table 5: Smoking Ban in Restaurants
“Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose banning smoking in restaurants?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Strongly Favor	200	33
Favor	151	25
Oppose	143	23
Strongly Oppose	50	8
Don’t Care	56	9
Don’t Know	12	2
Total	612	100

Figure 4: Smoking Ban in Restaurants

Table 6: Smoking Ban in Bars
“Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose banning smoking in bars?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Strongly Favor	89	15
Favor	110	18
Oppose	204	33
Strongly Oppose	93	15
Don’t Care	96	16
Don’t Know	19	3
Total	611	100

Figure 5: Smoking Ban in Bars

Table 7: Visit To Restaurant With Smoking Ban
“If your favorite restaurant banned smoking, would you visit the establishment more often, less often, or with the same frequency?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
More Often	192	31
Less Often	66	11
Same Frequency	347	57
Don’t Know	7	1
Total	612	100

Figure 6: Visit To Restaurant With Smoking Ban

Table 8: Wine in Grocery Stores
“Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose allowing supermarkets and grocery stores in Minnesota to be able to well wine?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Strongly Favor	90	15
Favor	266	44
Oppose	119	19
Strongly Oppose	33	5
Don’t Care	91	15
Don’t Know	14	2
Total	610	100

Figure 7: Wine in Grocery Stores

Table 9: Serving Alcohol Past One O’Clock in the Morning
“Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose allowing bars to serve alcohol past 1:00 in the morning?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Strongly Favor	44	7
Favor	140	23
Oppose	265	43
Strongly Oppose	103	17
Don’t Care	44	7
Don’t Know	15	3
Total	611	100

Figure 8: Serving Alcohol Past One O’Clock in the Morning

Table 10: Increase Spending for Roads and Bridges
“It is suggested Minnesota needs to increase spending on all types of transportantion options, including building new roads, widening some roads, building new bridges and creating commuter rail and expanding light rail. “Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree the state of Minnesota should increase spending for roads and bridges?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Strongly Agree	175	29
Agree	321	53
Disagree	70	11
Strongly Disagree	14	2
Don’t Know	31	5
Total	611	100

Figure 9: Increase Spending for Roads and Bridges

Table 11: Pay for Roads and Bridges
“If the state does decide to increase spending, how do you personally think the state of Minnesota should pay for this increased spending?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Borrow all that is necessary, without imposing any sort of new tax or fee	53	9
Borrow some money and impose a tax on non-Minnesota residents who commute to work in Minnesota for the rest	79	13
Borrow some money and impose tolls on some roads for the rest	99	16
Borrow some money and impose a dedicated tax on gasoline for the rest	137	22
Not borrow but impose some sort of tax or fee to pay the full, increased cost	110	18
I disagree with any increased spending-volunteered	42	7
Don’t Know	88	15
Total	608	100

Figure 10: Pay for Roads and Bridges

Table 12: Increase Spending for Commuter and Light Rail
“Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree the state of Minnesota should increase spending for commuter and light rail?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Strongly Agree	104	17
Agree	226	37
Disagree	148	24
Strongly Disagree	66	11
Don’t Know	64	11
Total	608	100

Figure 11: Increase Spending for Commuter and Light Rail

Table 13: Pay for Commuter and Light Rail
“If the state does decide to increase spending, how do you personally think the state of Minnesota should pay for this increased spending?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Rely on ticket prices only	103	17
Rely on ticket prices and local government aid for the rest	44	8
Rely on ticket prices and state aid for the rest	24	4
Use a combination of ticket prices and state and local government aid	312	51
I disagree with any increased spending-volunteered	68	11
Don’t Know	55	9
Total	606	100

Figure 12: Pay for Commuter and Light Rail

V. Demographic Indicators

Table 14: Respondent Age
“What age group are you in?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
18-24	53	9
25-34	91	15
35-44	107	18
45-54	130	21
55-65	107	18
65+	123	19
Total	611	100%

Table 15: Respondent Occupation
“Are you working now, temporarily laid off, unemployed, retired, a household manager, a student or what?” (If more than one) “What do you consider yourself primarily?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Working Now	392	64
Laid Off	13	2
Unemployed	9	2
Retired	146	24
Disabled	4	1
Household Manager	21	3
Student	24	4
Don’t Know	2	0
Total	611	100%

Table 16: Respondent Income Level
“Would you please tell me the range which best represents the total income, before taxes, or all immediate family living in your household?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Under 10,000	21	4
10,000-15,000	15	3
15,000-20,000	27	5
20,000-25,000	26	5
25,000-30,000	35	6
30,000-40,000	72	13
40,000-50,000	61	11
50,000-60,000	109	20
60,000 and above	154	27
Don’t Know	30	6
Total	550	100%

VI. Substantive Findings by Key Demographic Indicators

	Table 17: Importance of Twins by Key Demographic Indicators
	“How important is it to you personally to keep the Minnesota Twins in Minnesota? Is it very important, somewhat important, not important, or not at all important?”
Row Count/ Percent (rounded)		Very Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important	Not At All Important
Gender
Male		87/29	116/13	49/16	48/16
Female		89/29	127/41	40/13	52/17
Age
18-24		29/55	13/25	5/9	5/9
25-34		28/31	36/40	13/14	14/15
35-44		31/29	37/35	14/13	23/22
45-54		26/20	72/55	15/12	15/12
55-64		23/22	43/40	22/21	19/18
65 and above		38/31	42/34	19/15	24/20
Income Level
Under 10,000		6/29	8/38	3/14	4/19
10,000-15,000		5/33	6/40	0/0	3/20
15,000-20,000		8/30	12/44	6/22	¼
20,000-25,000		8/31	10/39	¼	7/27
25,000-30,000		9/26	16/46	5/14	4/11
30,000-40,000		22/31	32/44	9/13	9/13
40,000-50,000		14/23	28/46	7/12	12/20
50,000-60,000		27/25	41/38	20/18	21/19
60,000 and above		47/31	61/40	22/14	22/14
Party Identification
Democrat		55/24	96/42	32/14	44/19
Republican		58/30	76/40	27/14	28/15
Green		3/23	5/39	5/39	0/0
Independence		27/38	22/31	12/17	10/14

Table 18: Pay for a New Stadium by Key Demographic Indicators
“It is widely suggested that the long-term presence of the Minnesota Twins in Minnesota is not possible without a new baseball stadium. If a new stadium is built, do you personally think the stadium whoudl be funded by:” (respondent read choices by interviewer)
	Row Count/ Percent (rounded)	The private sector only, such as the team owner, players or other private donors	The state of Minnesota only	Local government only	A combination of private funds and state and local governments	The current stadium is fine
	Gender
	Male	123/41	3/1	6/2	109/36	55/18
	Female	118/38	2/1	3/1	96/31	82/27
	Age
	18-24	14/26	1/ 2	4/8	22/42	10/19
	25-34	28/31	2/2	1/1	25/39	23/25
	35-44	43/40	0/0	1/1	34/39	26/24
	45-54	54/42	0/0	1/1	46/35	26/20
	55-64	47/44	2/2	1/1	31/29	24/22
	65 and above	55/45	0/0	1/1	36/29	27/22
	Income Level
	Under 10,000	6/29	1/5	0/0	2/24	7/33
	10,000-15,000	8/53	0/0	0/0	5/33	2/13
	15,000-20,000	12/44	0/0	1/ 4	8/30	6/22
	20,000-25,000	10/39	0/0	1/ 4	7/27	8/31
	25,000-30,000	16/46	0/0	1/ 3	7/20	9/26
	30,000-40,000	25/35	0/0	3/ 4	26/36	16/22
	40,000-50,000	27/44	1/ 2	0/0	17/28	15/25
	50,000-60,000	44/40	1/1	1/1	37/34	23/21
	60,000 and above	56/36	1/1	1/1	66/43	28/18
	Party Identification
	Democrat	94/41	2/1	3/1	72/32	51/22
	Republican	78/41	2/1	3/2	65/34	39/20
	Green	6/46	0/0	1/8	2/15	3/23
	Independence	24/34	0/0	2/3	25/35	20/28

		Table 19: Smoke Cigarettes by Key Demographic Indicators
		“Do you smoke cigarettes?”
Row Count/ Percent (rounded)	Yes		No
Gender
Male	65/22		238/79
Female	55/18		255/82
Age
18-24	22/42		31/59
25-34	24/26		67/74
35-44	20/19		87/81
45-54	24/19		106/82
55-64	15/14		92/86
65 and above	14/11		109/89
Income Level
Under 10,000	9/43		12/57
10,000-15,000	4/27		11/73
15,000-20,000	4/15		23/85
20,000-25,000	7/27		19/73
25,000-30,000	5/14		30/86
30,000-40,000	20/28		52/72
40,000-50,000	13/21		48/79
50,000-60,000	28/26		81/74
60,000 and above	17/11		137/89
Party Identification
Democrat	43/19		185/81
Republican	32/17		160/83
Green	6/46		7/54
Independence	15/21		56/79

Table 20: Smoking Ban in Restaurants by Key Demographic Indicators
“Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose or strongly oppose banning smoking in restaurants?”
	Row Count/ Percent (rounded)	Strongly Favor	Favor	Oppose	Strongly Oppose	Don’t Care
	Gender
	Male	80/26	77/25	78/26	28/9	31/10
	Female	120/38	74/24	65/21	22/7	25/8
	Age
	18-24	15/28	13/25	14/26	7/13	2/4
	25-34	30/33	26/29	14/15	10/11	10/11
	35-44	35/33	33/31	20/19	7/7	8/8
	45-54	42/32	35/27	32/25	7/5	12/9
	55-64	39/36	21/20	25/23	11/10	8/8
	65 and above	39/32	22/18	37/30	8/7	16/13
	Income Level
	Under 10,000	8/38	2/10	7/33	2/10	2/10
	10,000-15,000	2/13	3/20	6/40	1/7	3/20
	15,000-20,000	7/26	8/30	7/26	0/0	4/15
	20,000-25,000	8/31	6/23	3/12	1/ 4	6/23
	25,000-30,000	12/34	5/14	8/23	3/9	6/17
	30,000-40,000	20/28	10/14	25/35	4/6	11/15
	40,000-50,000	21/34	15/27	15/25	5/8	4/7
	50,000-60,000	35/32	29/27	25/23	12/11	7/6
	60,000 and above	56/36	49/32	22/14	15/10	9/6
	Party Identification
	Democrat	81/36	63/28