1 / 18

NH Gaming Study Commission Spring, 2010 Granite State Poll Findings

NH Gaming Study Commission Spring, 2010 Granite State Poll Findings. Andrew E. Smith University of New Hampshire Survey Center Department of Political Science April 20, 2010. Methodology. Granite State Poll – quarterly survey of randomly selected NH adults N=503 (MSE = +/- 4.4%)

lucus
Download Presentation

NH Gaming Study Commission Spring, 2010 Granite State Poll Findings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NH Gaming Study CommissionSpring, 2010 Granite State Poll Findings Andrew E. Smith University of New Hampshire Survey Center Department of Political Science April 20, 2010

  2. Methodology • Granite State Poll – quarterly survey of randomly selected NH adults • N=503 (MSE = +/- 4.4%) • Conducted April 1-10, 2010 • RDD • Questions developed in conjunction with commission members

  3. “How familiar are you with current legislation that proposes the expansion of legal gambling in New Hampshire?”

  4. “Do you support or oppose development of slot machines at current horse and dog racing tracks?” 60% Support 29% Oppose

  5. People Most in Favor of Expanded Gaming at Existing Tracks

  6. People Most Opposed to Expanded Gaming at Existing Tracks

  7. “Do you support or oppose expanding gambling with new resort style casinos?” 53% Support 38% Oppose

  8. People Most in Favor of Expanded Gaming at Resort Casinos

  9. People Most Opposed to Expanded Gaming at Resort Casinos

  10. “Would you still support gambling at casinos if one were located in your town?”

  11. “The legislation to expand gambling in New Hampshire calls for gambling at 6 locations … at Rockingham Park in Salem, at dog racing tracks in Seabrook and Hinsdale, a new resort in Hudson, and at resorts in Grafton and Coos counties. Do you think the number of locations that will have gambling under this bill is too many, too few, or about right?”

  12. “If gambling is legalized in New Hampshire, do you think the citizens of the towns where facilities would be located should be able to vote on whether or not to allow gambling in their town or should the state government make these decisions, or don’t you have an opinion about this?”

  13. “If gambling is legalized in New Hampshire, should towns where casinos are located get some of the revenues from gambling or should all revenues go to the state, or don’t you have an opinion about this?”

  14. “If gambling is legalized in New Hampshire, do you think a new State agency should be created to provide regulation and oversight of gambling, or should the agencies that provide regulation and oversight for the lottery and racing be responsible for gambling as well, or don’t you have an opinion on this?”

  15. Perceived Impact of Legal Gambling on NH

  16. “Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate for the State Legislature if he or she supported legalized gambling?”

  17. “Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate for the State Legislature (State Senate) if he or she supported legalized gambling?”

  18. Conclusions • Modest awareness of proposed legislation • Moderate support for expanded gambling at existing tracks and new resort casinos • Too many sites • Local Control for Towns • Desire for town vote to allow casinos • Desire for town to receive some revenue • Uncertainty about regulatory structure • Divisive political issue

More Related