PressEnterprise Poll
The poll by SurveyUSA questioned 603 adults at households in Riverside and San Bernardino counties with phone numbers selected at random last week. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent. (Click on questions' # below to view graphical representation of results.)
1. State gambling agreements with California Indian tribes currently limit the number of slot machines that Indian tribes may operate. Should the number of slot machines Indian tribes are allowed to operate ... go down? Stay the same? Or go up?
28% Go Down
38% Stay The Same
33% Go Up
2% Not Sure
2. A proposal before the California legislature would let the Agua Caliente band of Cahuilla Indians in Palm Springs increase the number of slot machines it operates from 2,000 to 5,000. The proposal would also allow 3 other tribes - the Morongo band of Mission Indians near Cabazon, the Pechanga Band of Luise?o Indians near Temecula, and the San Manuel band near San Bernardino - increase the number of slot machines they operate from 2,000 each to 7,500 each. Do you support? Or do you oppose ... allowing area tribes to operate more slot machines?
41% Support
54% Oppose
5% Not Sure
3. If ratified, the new state-tribal agreements would require Indian tribes to share a portion of their slot machine revenue with the state. The state might collect an additional 200 million dollars to 300 million dollars a year. Do you now support? Or oppose? Changing the state-tribal agreements to allow more slot machines?
46% Support
47% Oppose
7% Not Sure
4. Now I am going to read some statements about casino gambling. For each, tell me whether you strongly agree ? somewhat agree ? somewhat disagree ? or strongly disagree. First: Casinos on tribal land will produce large amounts of revenue for the state.
32% Strongly Agree
35% Somewhat Agree
15% Somewhat Disagree
13% Strongly Disagree
5% Not Sure
[collapsed 67% agree/28% disagree]
28% Go Down
38% Stay The Same
33% Go Up
2% Not Sure
2. A proposal before the California legislature would let the Agua Caliente band of Cahuilla Indians in Palm Springs increase the number of slot machines it operates from 2,000 to 5,000. The proposal would also allow 3 other tribes - the Morongo band of Mission Indians near Cabazon, the Pechanga Band of Luise?o Indians near Temecula, and the San Manuel band near San Bernardino - increase the number of slot machines they operate from 2,000 each to 7,500 each. Do you support? Or do you oppose ... allowing area tribes to operate more slot machines?
41% Support
54% Oppose
5% Not Sure
3. If ratified, the new state-tribal agreements would require Indian tribes to share a portion of their slot machine revenue with the state. The state might collect an additional 200 million dollars to 300 million dollars a year. Do you now support? Or oppose? Changing the state-tribal agreements to allow more slot machines?
46% Support
47% Oppose
7% Not Sure
4. Now I am going to read some statements about casino gambling. For each, tell me whether you strongly agree ? somewhat agree ? somewhat disagree ? or strongly disagree. First: Casinos on tribal land will produce large amounts of revenue for the state.
32% Strongly Agree
35% Somewhat Agree
15% Somewhat Disagree
13% Strongly Disagree
5% Not Sure
[collapsed 67% agree/28% disagree]
5. Next: Tribal casinos cause criminal activity in the surrounding communities.
22% Strongly Agree
26% Somewhat Agree
31% Somewhat Disagree
17% Strongly Disagree
4% Not Sure
[Collapsed: 48% agree/48% disagree]
6. Next: Tribal casinos help the local economy.
37% Strongly Agree
34% Somewhat Agree
15% Somewhat Disagree
12% Strongly Disagree
2% Not Sure
[collapsed 71% agree/27% disagree]
7. Tribal casinos treat their workers well.
26% Strongly Agree
35% Somewhat Agree
13% Somewhat Disagree
9% Strongly Disagree
17% Not Sure
[collapesd 61% agree/22% disagree]
8. Tribal casinos treat their customers well.
31% Strongly Agree
37% Somewhat Agree
11% Somewhat Disagree
9% Strongly Disagree
12% Not Sure
[collapsed 68% agree/20% disagree]
9. Has gambling on tribal land in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties been ... Good for BOTH the casinos and the residents? BAD for BOTH the casinos and the residents? GOOD for the casinos, but BAD for the residents? Or ... BAD for the casinos but GOOD for the residents?
45% Good For Both
6% Bad For Both
40% Good For The Casinos
1% Good For The Residents
8% Not Sure
[collapsed 85% good for casinos/46% good for residents]
10. In the past year, have you yourself gambled on tribal land within the state of California?
46% Yes
54% No
1% Not Sure
©2007 SurveyUSA / Contractual Obligations
No comments:
Post a Comment