DATE: January 16, 2018

TO: Chris G. for Governor

FROM: Ben Lazarus and Lily Siegman, TargetSmart Research & Analytics
RE: Wide open race for governor

Our recent survey of likely general election midterm votersi finds Nevada’s contest for governor to be wide open
and very competitive, no matter which Democratic candidate emerges from the primary.

Chart 1: General Election Horse Race The poll shows that a large portion of voters are undecided in the
race for governor at this early juncture, but that both contenders for
the Democratic nomination are on equal footing in general election
Adam Chris G Adam Steve match-ups with presumptive GOP nominee Adam Laxalt. As shown in
Laxalt Sisolak
Laxalt 34% 37%
Chart 1 to the left, Chris G. and Steve Sisolak each garner 34 percent
39% 34%
of the vote when matched up against the state’s current Attorney
Und Und General, each trailing him by a slim deficit that is well within the
27% 29%
survey’s +/- 4.4 percent margin of error. But beneath the surface we
measure an edge for Chris G. over Sisolak, suggesting that she has the
capacity to attract more support as she expands her profile. Among the voters who recognize Chris G.'s name
today, she leads Laxalt 45 to 36 percent. In comparison, among the voters who recognize Sisolak's name today,
the contest is tied 38 to 38 percent. Notably, Laxalt fails to eclipse the 40 percent threshold in either matchup,
despite the structural advantages he has as a current statewide elected official.

As shown in Chart 2 to the right, Chris G. and Sisolak have nearly

identical favorability ratings and statewide name ID (36 percent Chart 2: Favorable Ratings
ID Chris G. and 39 percent ID Sisolak), though Chris G.’s
64%
unfavorables are slightly lower than Sisolak’s today. Expectedly, 61%

given his current position in statewide elected office, Laxalt has a

more filled-in public profile than either Democratic contender (70 35% 35%
30%

percent can ID him). However, Laxalt is clearly more of a 20%

16%
20% 19%

polarizing figure than a popular one as equal blocs of voters give

him favorable and unfavorable personal ratings. Moreover, we
Chris G Steve Sisolak Adam Laxalt
would expect Laxalt’s significant name ID advantage over the
Democratic field to translate into a similar advantage in the horse Favorable Unfavorable Unsure/never heard
race. That advantage does not materialize in this survey,
reflective of the political environment, the current wind in Democrats’ sails, and Laxalt’s divisiveness.

This poll highlights the open contest for governor in Nevada as a fantastic pick-up opportunity for Democrats.
What’s more, there’s no data here that suggests Sisolak is in a stronger position than Chris G. to take on Laxalt in
the general election. That narrative is grounded in conjecture that is clearly refuted by the data in this poll.
i
TargetSmart designed and administered this multi-mode, blended methodology, telephone survey. The survey reached 1,103 adults, age 18 or older who indicated they were registered to vote in Nevada. The survey was
conducted from January 3-7, 2018. The sample was randomly selected from TargetSmart's enhanced voter file. As weighted, 24 percent of respondents were reached on wireless phones, with interviews conducted by live,
professional operators. As weighted, 76 percent of respondents were reached on landline phones using interactive voice response technology (also known as IVR or "push-button" polling). Quotas were assigned to reflect the
demographic distribution of registered voters in Nevada. The data were weighted by gender, party registration, race, age, and geography to ensure an accurate reflection of the population. A second round of weighting was
then applied to the data, proportionally weighting responses based on each voter’s TargetSmart Midterm General Election Turnout score, and more specifically the extent to which that score deviates from the average score of
this particular survey sample; thus producing a tabulated sample of "likely midterm voters." The data was weighted to an effective sample size of 500 interviews. The overall margin of error is +/- 4.4%.