Global Perspective.

Innovative Research.
Superior Results.

For questions or comments related to

this study, please contact:

Chris Wilson
CEO
cwilson@w-r-s.com

Bryon Allen
COO
ballen@w-r-s.com

Ryan Steusloff
Vice President Kansas City Mayoral Election
rsteusloff@w-r-s.com

David Titus
Brushfire 2 Study
Account Executive
dtitus@w-r-s.com
Conducted March 13-14, 2011
n=300 Likely Municipal Voters
324 2ndSt. SE
Washington, DC 20003
(o) 202.470.6300
MoE= ±5.7% @ 95% Confidence Interval
WRS ID 11-244
© 2011 WRS/Axiom Strategies. All rights reserved.
Neither this publication nor any part of it may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of WRS/Axiom
Strategies.
 Table of Contents

The Mayoral Race

• Pg 3

Summary
• Pg 16

Research Design and Demographic

• Pg 18

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 2
 The Mayoral Race

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 3
 Sly James and Mike Burke have near identical images among the likely
voters in Kansas City. Neither has a statistical advantage in name ID.
Mayoral Candidate Image Trend

Sly James Mike Burke

100% 100%
90% 92%
87% 88% 89%
90% 90% 85%

80% 80%

70% 70% 66% 64%

61% 63% 63%
59%
60% 60%

50% 50%

40% 40%

30% 30%

20% 20%
10% 11% 10% 10%
7% 6%
10% 10%

0% 0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14 Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 4
 Burke’s name ID is slightly higher than James’ in every District but the
Third; neither candidate has what could be considered an advantage in
any District.
Mayoral Candidates: Name ID across Kansas City

CCD 2
James Name ID: 94% CCD 1
Burke Name ID: 100% James Name ID: 87%
Burke Name ID: 91%

CCD 4 CCD 3
James Name ID: 93% James Name ID: 83%
Burke Name ID: 99% Burke Name ID: 80%

CCD 5
CCD 6
James Name ID: 81%
James Name ID: 96%
Burke Name ID: 82%
Burke Name ID: 96%

CCD1 CCD2 CCD3 CCD4 CCD5 CCD6

City Council Districts
16% 11% 10% 24% 21% 18%
© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies
CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 5
 Burke has pulled to within a single point of James on the mayoral
ballot.
Mayoral Ballot

Mayoral Ballot
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%
39%
38% 39%
40%
35% 38%
30% 35%

20% 27% 26%

23%
10%

0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total James Total Burke Undecided

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 6
 Partisan Sub-Groups

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 7
 Burke’s considerably image advantage translates into a 43% lead
among Republican voters.

100%
James Image 100%
Burke Image
88% 93% 93%
80% 86% 80%
78% 80%
60% 45% 50% 60%
43% 58% 74% 71%
40% 40%
16%
20% 15% 20% 7% 5% 3%
21%
0% 0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14 Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID

Ballot
100%
80% 62% 64%
60% 45%
40% 30% 24% 21%
20% 25% 14% 16%
0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total James Total Burke Undecided

Republicans 19%

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 8
 James currently holds a six point lead among Independents, but
nearly four in ten are still undecided.

100%
James Image 100%
Burke Image
91% 92% 95%
80% 85% 86% 80% 84%
64%
63% 69%
54% 55% 58%
60% 60%
40% 40%
14% 11% 11%
20% 20% 8% 7% 7%
0% 0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14 Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID

100%
Ballot
80%
60%
43% 37% 40%
40%
33% 33%
20% 24% 34%
29% 27%
0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14
Total James Total Burke Undecided

Independents 27%

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 9
 Democrats have James up by 18 points. James’ image among this
large bloc of voters is much stronger than Burke’s.

100%
James Image 100%
Burke Image
93% 91% 90% 89%
80% 80% 77% 81%
60% 75% 71% 60% 71% 61%
68% 66%
40% 40%
14%
20% 4% 7% 7% 20% 7% 7%
0% 0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14 Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID

100%
Ballot
80%
55% 51%
60% 48%
40% 26% 33%
32%
20% 20% 19% 16%
0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total James Total Burke Undecided

Democrats 50%

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 10
 Regional Differences

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 11
 Burke leads by more than 25 points in the Northland.

100%
James Image 100%
Burke Image
91% 96%
85% 85% 90%
80% 80% 80%
60% 62%
46%
61% 60% 62% 75%
68%
40% 40%
10% 15%
20% 8% 20% 8% 5% 5%
0% 0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14 Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID

100%
Ballot
80%
56%
60% 49% 42%
40%
30% 30% 29%
20% 29% 15%
22%
0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total James Total Burke Undecided

Northland 25%

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 12
 James has a ten point advantage among voters south of the river.

100%
James Image 100%
Burke Image
90% 90% 89% 86% 90% 90%
80% 80%
60% 65%
63% 64% 60% 63% 65% 61%
40% 40%
12% 9% 12%
20% 7% 20% 7% 7%
0% 0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14 Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID

100%
Ballot
80%
60% 40% 43% 42%
40%
34% 32% 32%
20%
26% 25% 26%
0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total James Total Burke Undecided

Southland 75%

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 13
 Demographic Sub-Groups

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 14
 Burke has improved his lead among white voters to eleven points.
Only about a quarter of whites are undecided.

100%
James Image 100%
Burke Image
92% 91% 96%
86% 85% 89%
80% 80%
58% 52% 65%
60% 60% 75%
69% 67%
40% 40%
12% 14%
20% 8% 20% 8% 5% 5%
0% 0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14 Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID

100%
Ballot
80%
60% 46%
40% 43%
40%
28% 31% 32%
20%
26% 28% 24%
0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total James Total Burke Undecided

Whites 64%

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 15
 James has the support of a strong majority of African-American voters,
while Burke’s image has declined among this demographic. Roughly one
in five are still undecided.

100%
James Image 100%
Burke Image
92% 98% 87% 81% 90%
80% 80% 85%
62%
79% 59%
60% 73% 65% 60% 42%
40% 40%
12% 11%
20% 5% 5% 20% 4% 21%
0% 0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14 Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID

100%
Ballot
80% 62%
55% 56%
60%
40% 23%
26% 20%
20% 21%
19% 19%
0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total James Total Burke Undecided

African-Americans 28%

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 16
 Alternate Turnout Models

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 17
 In a medium turnout election (3-4/4 voters only), Burke would have a two
point lead.

100%
James Image 100%
Burke Image
88% 88% 90% 90% 93%
80% 80% 86%

60% 60%
63% 61% 66% 65% 67% 67%
40% 40%
20% 10% 10% 10% 20% 7% 7% 10%

0% 0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14 Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID

100%
Ballot
80%
60% 41%
40%
39%
40% 38%
35% 33%
20% 26% 22%
26%
0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total James Total Burke Undecided

Medium Turnout (Vote History: 3-4 of 4) 86%

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 18
 In a very low turnout election, Burke would still have a two point lead.

100%
James Image 100%
Burke Image
90% 92% 94%
87% 86% 87%
80% 80%
60% 65% 68% 60% 70%
59% 65% 69%
40% 40%
20% 10% 10% 9% 20% 9% 5% 10%

0% 0%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14 Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID Total Fav Total Unfav Total Name ID

Ballot
100%
80%
60% 40% 38% 39%
40% 34% 37%
36%
20% 23%
26%
0% 26%
Feb 28 March 6-7 March 13-14

Total James Total Burke Undecided

Low Turnout (Vote History: 4 of 4) 66%

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 19
 Summary

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 20
 Summary and Recommendations
• Sly James and James Burke have very similar, strong images in Kansas City.
o James has improved his image over the last week, while Burke has not
made any significant gains and has seen his unfavorables grow.
o Neither candidate has an image advantage among consistent voters (those
who have voted in at least three of the last four elections).
o James has the advantage among Democrats and in the Southland, which
are two of the largest demographic groups.

• A single point separates the candidates on the ballot, with about a quarter of
voters undecided.
o Burke has gained on James, but James still has considerable leads among
Independents and Democrats, whom compose more than three-quarters of
the electorate.
 James also leads south of the river.
o Burke has closed the race by building considerable leads among
Republicans and Northland voters.

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 21
 Research Design & Demographics

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 22
 Research Design
Wilson Research Strategies conducted a research study of likely municipal voters across
Kansas City, Missouri.

WRS selected a random sample of likely municipal voters from the Missouri voter file
using Registration Based Sampling (RBS). The sample for this survey was stratified
based on geography, age, gender, and vote history. This methodology allows us to
minimize post-survey “weighting” which can reduce the reliability of survey results.

Respondents were contacted by phone via a live telephone operator interview March
13-14, 2010. The study has a sample size of n=300 likely special municipal voters.
The margin of error is equal to ±5.7% in 95 out of 100 cases.

Chris Wilson, CEO of Wilson Research Strategies; Bryon Allen, COO; and Ryan Steusloff,
Vice President, were the lead researchers on this project. Daniel Narvaiz and Matthew
Cuddy provided project management and analytical support.

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 23
 Demographics
Age Survey Results Party Survey Results
18-34 7% Republican 19%
35-44 18% Independent 27%
45-54 19% Democrat 50%

55-64 25% Gender

65-74 16% Men 45%

75 and over 13% Women 55%

Ideology Vote History

0 of 4 0%
Very Conservative 16%
1 of 4 6%
Somewhat
16% 2 of 4 9%
Conservative
Moderate 38% 3 of 4 20%

Liberal 25% 4 of 4 66%

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 24
 Demographics

Ethnicity Survey Results City Council District

White 64% District 1 16%

Hispanic
2% District 2 11%
African-American
28% District 3 10%
Other
2% District 4 24%

District 5 21%

District 6 18%

© 2011 Wilson Research Strategies

CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission 25
 For additional information about this data please feel free to contact:

Chris Wilson Bryon Allen

Founder/CEO COO
cwilson@w-r-s.com ballen@w-r-s.com

202.470.6300

2003 – WRS – Confidential

© 2011 Wilson Research©Strategies
CONFIDENTIAL – do not copy or distribute without written permission