Philip Morris
Michigan Survey 8
Fields
- Type
- QUES, QUESTIONNAIRE
- COMP, COMPUTER PRINTOUT
- Area
- SLAVITT,JOSHUA/OFFICE
- Master ID
- 2025684073/4854
Related Documents:- 2025684073
- 2025684074
- 2025684075-4854 Legislative Approaches to A Smoke Free Society
- 2025684085-4138 A Study of Public Attitudes Toward Cigarette Smoking and the Tobacco Industry in 780000
- 2025684139-4144 Proposition P: Anatomy of A Nonsmokers' Rights Ordinance. The Basics of Beating the Tobacco Industry
- 2025684145-4152 California City and County Smoking Ordinances
- 2025684153-4154 States Placing Limitations Nonsmoking in Public Places. States with Laws Addressing Smoking in the Workplace
- 2025684155-4230 Bibliography on Involuntary Smoking
- 2025684231-4232
- 2025684233-4234 Tobacco Smoke and the Nonsmoker
- 2025684235-4241 Testimony of James L. Repace in the Matter on Senate Bill 1440, the Nonsmokers' Rights Act of 850000. Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services, Committee on Governmental Affairs Washington, D.C. 850930
- 2025684242-4248 Testimony of Joseph A. Califano, Jr. Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services
- 2025684249-4255 Testimony of Alfred Munzer, M.D. On Behalf of the Coalition on Smoking or Health and Its Member Organizations the American Lung Association the American Heart Association the American Cancer Society on the Nonsmokers' Rights Act of 850000 Before the Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services Committee on Government Affairs U.S. Senate 850930
- 2025684256-4262 Written Testimony of Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D. Submitted to the Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office, and General Services Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate for Hearing on S.1440 the Non-Smokers Rights Act of 850000 850930
- 2025684263-4278 Statement of the Honorable Bill Ross Commissioner Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation S-1440, on the Non-Smokers Rights Act of 850000 Before the United States Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Washington, D.C. 850930
- 2025684279-4297 Clean Your Room A Compendium on Air Pollution
- 2025684298-4308 Indoor Pollutants
- 2025684309-4310
- 2025684311-4312 Celebrities Who Have Supported Nonsmokers' Rights
- 2025684313 Known Causes of Residential Fires National Figures for 810000
- 2025684314 Known Causes of Residential Fires California Figures for 810000
- 2025684315-4320 Tobacco Industry Conglomerates - Status Report on Diversification in the Tobacco Industry 840000 Representative Products
- 2025684321-4326 Written Testimony of Professor Marvin M. Kristein. Ph.D. Departments of Economics and Community and Preventive Medicine State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office, and General Services Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Hearing on S. 1440, to Restrict Smoking to Designated Areas in All U.S. Government Buildings 850930
- 2025684327-4349 How Much Can Business Expect to Profit From Smoking Cessation?
- 2025684350-4353 Wanted: Smoking Policies for the Work Place. Company Activities in Smoking Control
- 2025684354-4367 A Smokefree Workplace An Employers' Guide to Nonsmoking Policies
- 2025684368 California Poll Majority Would Restrict Smoking
- 2025684369-4372 Strong Sentiment to Restrict Smoking in Public Places
- 2025684373
- 2025684374-4375
- 2025684376 Summary of Results of the 830400 Survey by the Gallup Organization 'survey of Attitudes Towards Smoking'
- 2025684377 840000 Gallup Monthly Report on Eating Out
- 2025684378-4383 the Prevention Index 850000 A Report Card on the Nation's Health Summary Report
- 2025684384-4386 People of Michigan Say 'yes' - They Do Want to Limit Smoking in Public Places
- 2025684387-4389 Public Support for A State Law Restricting Smoking in Public Places
- 2025684390-4391
- 2025684430-4436 Testimony of Harry Perlstadt, Ph.D, M.P.H., Chairperson Michigan Coalition on Smoking or Health Before the Michigan House Public Health Committee Sub-Committee on H. B. 4500
- 2025684437 Summary of 800000 Minnesota Poll
- 2025684438 Good Idea Defies Smoke Screen
- 2025684439 Thy Neighbor's Lungs
- 2025684440 Smoking Your Wife to Death
- 2025684441 Oh, to Breathe in Nassau County...
- 2025684442 Contra Costa Packs It in
- 2025684443 Clearing the Air
- 2025684444-4445 Secondhand Smoke
- 2025684446 Tobacco Company Crusaders Try Weapon of 'courtesy'
- 2025684447 Cigarette Makers Set Greed Record
- 2025684448 Why Does Anyone in This Nation Still Smoke Cigarettes?
- 2025684449 Good Neighbor
- 2025684450-4451 Frisco Votes An Antidote to Smoking Poison
- 2025684452 News Item: San Francisco Passes Toughest Anti-Smoking Law in U.S.
- 2025684453 'thank You for Smoking'
- 2025684454
- 2025684455
- 2025684456-4457
- 2025684458
- 2025684459
- 2025684460
- 2025684461 5 Regulation of Smoking - Initiative Statute Argument in Favor of Proposition 5. Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 5
- 2025684462-4474 Cigarette Smoke and the Nonsmoker
- 2025684475-4482 A Rebuttal to the Tobacco Industry's Paper, 'cigarette Smoke and the Nonsmoker'
- 2025684483-4486 Response to American Lung Association of Superior, California Document 'the Need for Smoking Control Legislation in Butte County: A Case Statement'
- 2025684487-4488
- 2025684489-4493 A Statement on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking
- 2025684494 Los Angeles City Public Smoking Issue Public Opinion Survey Summary of Findings
- 2025684495 Survey of Los Angeles City Voters 506 Interviews Margin of Error: Plus or Minus 5 Percent
- 2025684496
- 2025684496A Poll Shows L.A. Voters Oppose Anti-Smoking Law for Business
- 2025684497
- 2025684498
- 2025684499-4500 Appendix: A Slanted Poll on Smoking Law
- 2025684501-4504 Michigan Tobacco and Candy Distributors and Vendors Association Michigan Statewide Survey 850429 - 850430
- 2025684505-4506 Account of Tobacco Institute Poll in Fort Collins, Colorado, 841100
- 2025684507-4509 Tobacco Institute Poll Raising Eyebrows Here
- 2025684510-4522 Development of A Comprehensive Ordinance Regulating Smoking in Enclosed Public Places and Places of Employment
- 2025684523-4532 Regulation of Smoking in Public Places and the Workplace
- 2025684533-4549 Opinion 82 - 55 Regulation of Smoking in the Workplace in the City and County of San Francisco
- 2025684550-4565 Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684566-4577
- 2025684578-4581 Addiction Mortality in the United States, 800000: Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Substances
- 2025684582-4605 Economic Costs of Smoking: An Analysis of Data for the United States
- 2025684606-4611 Questions and Answers on Proposed Nonsmokers' Rights Legislation
- 2025684612-4631 A Quantitative Estimate of Nonsmokers' Lung Cancer Risk From Passive Smoking
- 2025684632-4633 the Oregon Indoor Clean Air Act and You An Explanation of the Law and the Rules for Its Implementation
- 2025684634-4639 Smoking in the Workplace City of San Jose Ordinance 21830
- 2025684640 Cityline Thank You for Observing San Diego's New No Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684641-4642 Thank You for Observing San Diego's No-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684643-4645 City of Ft. Collins No-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684646-4653 the Smoking Policy Handbook
- 2025684654-4655
- 2025684656 Equal Employment Opportunities 42 Uscs 2000e-2. Discrimination Because of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, or National Origin
- 2025684657 Compiled Laws Annotated 37.2202 Employer, Prohibited Acts
- 2025684658-4669 Model Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance
- 2025684670-4680 An Ordinance Amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to Regulate Smoking in Public Places and Places of Employment.
- 2025684681-4686 Ordinance Number 0-15865 An Ordinance Amending Chapter IV, Article 5, Division 1 of the San Diego Municipal Code by Amending Sections 45.0101, 45.0102, 45,0103, 45.0104, 45. 0105, 45.0107 and 45.0108 Relating to Regulation of Smoking in Public Places and Places of Employment
- 2025684687-4689 Ordinance No. 298-83 (Health Regulations) Amending Part II, Chapter V, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Health Code) by Adding Article 19 Thereto, Regulating Smoking in the Office Workplace
- 2025684690-4702 Ordinance No. 85-005 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 37 of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Smoking
- 2025684703-4704 Ordinance No. 85-016 An Ordinance Amending Chapter 37, Section 37.22, of the Sacramento City Code Relating to Smoking
- 2025684705-4709 Ordinance No. 3476 Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Smoking in Elevators, Public Restrooms, and Indoor Service Lines and Regulating Smoking in the Workplace
- 2025684710-4716 Ordinance No. 16.84 An Ordinance of the City of Mountain View Repealing Section 21.46 of the Mountain View City Code, and Adding Article II to Chapter 21, Relating to the Protection of One's Right to Fresh Air Through the Prohibition and Regulation of Smoking in Certain Places
- 2025684717-4720 Proposed Ordinance Regarding Smoking in the Workplace
- 2025684721 San Francisco Anti-Smoking Law A Success
- 2025684722 Sf Controls Are Working Smokers Survive Their New Habit
- 2025684723 A Month with Smoking Law: Problems Resolved Smoothly
- 2025684724-4726 County Close to Being Smoke-Free
- 2025684727
- 2025684728-4731 No Smoking Ordinance, Implementation and Enforcement.
- 2025684732-4733
- 2025684734-4734A
- 2025684735 No Smoking Ordinance Information
- 2025684736-4738 Non-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684739-4739A Smoking Ordinance - Status Report on Implementation of Enforcement and Effectiveness
- 2025684740-4751 the San Francisco Experience with Regulation of Smoking in the Workplace: the First Twelve Months
- 2025684752-4753
- 2025684754
- 2025684755-4757
- 2025684758-4761 Contact List for Information Regarding the Experience of California Cities Relative to Enforcement of Existing Smoking Regulation Ordinances
- 2025684762-4763
- 2025684764-4773 Testimony of Robert D. Tollison on the 'non-Smokers Rights Act of 850000' S. 1440 Before U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services
- 2025684774-4815 Economic Impact of Instituting Smoking Prohibitions in U.S. Government Buildings
- 2025684816-4819 Pleasant Hill City Council Considers Model Smoking Law
- 2025684820 L.A. Councilman to Propose Anti-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684821 L.A.'s Gravy Train Does the City Council Care How Tawdry It Looks?
- 2025684822 City Panel Studies No-Smoking Proposal
- 2025684823 Watered Down No-Smoking Law Gets Preliminary Ok. No-Smoking Ordinance Endorsed
- 2025684824 L.A. Council Acts to Limit Smoking at Places of Work 10-1 Vote for Measure
- 2025684825-4826 Council Adopts Tough Law on Smoking on Job
- 2025684827-4828 Conflicts Mostly Solved Few Fired Up Over L.A. Smoking Law
- 2025684829 L.A. Council Acts to Ease Curbs on Smoking at Work Victory for Businesses
- 2025684830 Tobacco Firms Act to Snuff Out Smoking Law View Weakening of L.A. Plan As Just A First Step
- 2025684831 No-Smoking Law Opponent Hosting Council at Resort. Council: Desert Retreat
- 2025684832-4833 L.A. Strengthens Draft Ordinance to Curb Smoking Penalty for Retaliation. Orange County Revives Anti-Smoking Ordinance
- 2025684834 Council Puts Some Muscle Back in L.A. Smoking Law
- 2025684835 L.A. Approves Strict on-Job Smoking Law Smoking: Law Approved, Goes to Bradley
- 2025684836 Bradley to Sign No-Smoking Ordinance, Press Aide Says
- 2025684837 the Region Law's Opposition Doused
- 2025684838 Clock Running for No-Smoking Plans
- 2025684839-4841 Smoking on the Job No More Ifs, Ands, Butts - It's Law
- 2025684842-4843 A Month with Smoking Law: Problems Resolved Smoothly
- 2025684844 Jonesville County Health Coalition Announces Introduction of Jonesville Smoking Law
- 2025684845-4847 Medical Association Head Endorses Nonsmokers' Rights Plan
- 2025684848-4854 Michael Schildberger Show Radio 310 Melbourne Australia Friday, 850726 9:10 A.M.
- Request
- Stmn/R1-037
- Stmn/R1-102
- Document File
- 2025684071/2025684856/Americans for Non Smokers
- 2025684072/2025684855/Americans for Non Smokers
- Litigation
- Stmn/Produced
- Site
- N340
- Characteristic
- EXTR, EXTRA
- ILLE, ILLEGIBLE
- MARG, MARGINALIA
- ILLE, ILLEGIBLE
- Date Loaded
- 23 May 1999
- UCSF Legacy ID
- frc81f00
Document Images
C
R/SIR'C CATl SYSTEM
OJECT: SCR
.?IHS8.S'CR
QUE~~S~TI CNWA I'R'Q~ L~ I S"~!'~.:
rJ9-Cct-:<
J 1. 1'6 :
(D
MICHIGAN SURV'E 8

09-0ct-9k
----------
M I1C HT GAInI! SUA'V!EY 8
We are Unterested in how peopi~e are getting alionq financiallty,
,these days. Would you say that~ ('L307 are
better off' or worse off financially than you were a year alSlo?
1. BIETTER OFF'
3. SAME
S. wiORSIE OFF
8'. D'ON" T KNOW
ci :3m, PW
, ? M GI;:, 3
-~
:------------ ----------------- ----------------------------------------- .
I NOT'E: S'TAR'TING TIME AND DATE WILL BE S'TAMPEO, WHEN YOU' ENTER RESPOiNSE. 11
1---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Is ~
uM r : V151
CY1 IF V96=«" THEN V96=TME'(1') X V9&=OTEIiOI
SK1 IF V15'la1 THEN GOTn Ala ELSE IF V15'1=5 THEN GOTO Ala
[!GIQ TO A2
-- Al!a,
Is that 20i4mwaha0'0 better or at14somewhata0O better?
1. MUCX BIETT'ER
2. SOMiE'MHAT 8'ETT'ER
3.. NOT SURE
NUIM R> : V3L71
MC T! a?
-- Al1a
Is that 204Much@00 worse or al04somewhata00
7. MUC'H, WORSE
6. SOMEWHAT WORSE
5. N0T SURE'
NU1M 8 > 8 V3'17'
worse?
N-26

l1:9-Gc't-34
w'tCFN1 GAN SURVEY 8'.
-- A'2 ----------
Now looking aheaid -- do you thi'nk that a year from now,
LL307 willi be Q04better offa'D0 financiaJ'1yf or a04:worse! of'fa0'0f or just about the same as
now?
l. Ii11LL BE BETTER OFF
3o SAME
5. WILL BE WORSE OFF
8. DON'T'KNOW
M tr : V152
- a3'----------
C
Now turnJng to business conditi'ons in t'he country as a whole
mo you think tfiat duriing the next 12 months we'11I have good!
t i'mes f'ilnanc i a l 1iy ar bad t i mes or what?
l. GOOD TIMES
2. GOOD iiI'TH' QUALIF'ICA'TI0'NS
3. PRO-CON aO2(PF110 T'0 SPEC'I'FY)a00.
4. BAD WITH QUALIFICATIONS
5'. BAD TIMES
8'. DON,' T KNOW
M M : V'1S3
- A 4 ----------
Would you say that at the present time business cond'itions
are better or worse than they were a year ago?
1. BETTER NOW
3. ABOUT THE SAME'
5. wORSE'NOW,
:U1y p> :! V'1S4
N-27
C 1 : 3'G i) :C
PA u~- 4

Oi9-Oc t-84
.- A5 --------
M'ICHIGAN SURVEY 8'
Looking ahead, whirch would you say i's more likely -- that In
the country as a wholie w0 /1 hawe corntinuous good times
during the next five years or so, or that we willl have periods
o'f widesAreadl unemployment or depressiorl, or what?
1'----------------------------------------------------------f
i' IWER: IF R ANSWERS: IiN COMPARATIVE TERM'S. l.E.,, "®ETT~ERM, I
t' "WORSE^. OR SAMIE", MOBE: N'wouJd that be 804.gooda00
i times or aA4badai00 times?"
--------------------------------------------------------- i
rPEN ENDiEDc VS55'
------_-_-
-- A6
Andihow about a year from now+, do you expect that In
the country as a whole busllness condiiti'ons will be
betterv or worse than they are at presenit, or Just
about' the same?
1. BETTER' A YEAR FROM NOW
3. A80WT' THE SAME'
5. WORSE A YEAR' FROM NOW
:NUw1 x'> :' V'156
-- AZ' ----------
About the b i g th iin gs oeoal!e buy f or t'he i r homes -- such ass
furnttures a-Te'.f'rilge'rator, s'tove, teiev'isiionv and things like
that. Gener'a1ly swealting, do you t'hink, now is a good or a bad
time for peop le to buy major househoild items?
I'. GOOD
3. PRO-CON i0Q1P'F110 TO RECORD RESPONSEf'a0i0
5. BAD
,
8. DON!T KNOW
i
WM M
s V157
x+-2rS
0'1 : 3 4 P ~
PAGF 5.

C
;)9-co.t-34
MICIYIGAN SURVEY 8'
-- As ----------
Now turning to busilness' conditions aDwin the state of Mi'.chip;ain-2DO' --
do you think that during the next 12 months we'II have good
tines financiallyl or bad timesr or what?
I. GOOD TIMES
3'. PPtO-CDnI o102(PF1D TO S'PECTFYI@00
5. 8AD TIMIES
8'. DON'''T KNG"W
MuM a> : V15g
:K1 I F V6=2 THEN GOTO 88,
-- 51 ----------
A mroposed, amendment to the Constitution, would reQuiire
Congresi to approve a balanced federalt buoqet each
year. Government spendinq would have to be Iimiited to
no more thani expected' revenues* unJ eas a thiree-f i ft'hs
majority of'Conflress voted to spend'morethan expected
revenue. Wouid! you favor or oopose this amendment to the
Const i't'ut I on?
1. FA'VL'R.
2I. OIPpOSE
9'. DO'N T KN@W
)" M :' V'162
:V'1 I F V30'3'=""' THEN V303!=TME ( 1)
- 84 ---------- -
Do you, th,ink the federal government will raise personal
taxes in, the next twelve months.* or do you expect them
to stay at their present Ilevei?'
1. YE.is WILL RAIS'E P'ERSDNAL TAXES
3. DEPENDS (VOLUNTEERED)
5. N0. EXPECT THEM TO STAY AT PRESENT LEVELS
8. DiON'T KNOW
M N : V163
N-29

0 19-:ct-8.4
M;CMI'GAN SURVEY 8
--- a5' ----------
Thero has been some talk recently about a nuclear freezet
that i's; a proposal to halt the testingv productiono ai
iinstallation of additional nuclear weapons.
Have you been paying much attention to the~issue of a
nuclear freeze or not?,
I . Y'E S
5. NO
41JK N : V164
.-- 06 ----------
Do youi favor or oppose, the United' States agireeJn9 to a
"nuclear freeze" with the Soviet Union (that is. putt'ing
a stoP to the testingi productiono and instailation of
aad j t i ona l nuc 1'ear weapons by trottn s i!des )?
1. FAVOR,
3. ©EIPEND'S (VJLUitiTEERS )
5. OiPPGSEI
8. ©ON'T KNOW
jJiM 01 : V'165
.-- g7' ------- ---
Oo~ you f avor or opoose the Eipua I R i ghts, Amendment -
al!so~ knowin as~ the~~ E~~RA~ - the, proposed!cons~ti~t~~ut'~i'~ona~ll
almen0ment concierni n9 l+omen?'
1. FAVOR
54, CiPPOSE
8'. ©0N'T KNOW
JUM ! :' V166

c
MTCHIGAN SUR'vEY 8
C1':7 aM
P4 C= 6
(
Some peon I e don't pay much atte'nt i on to piol i!t ica I campa i qns.
How about yo'u?' Wouldiyou'say that you have been very much
ilnterested4 somewhat Intere'stedl or not much interested In
the presidrentiial campaigns so far this year?
1. VERY MUCH INTERE'ST!ED
3'. SbMEWiHAT' INTERESTED
5. NOT MUCH INTERESTED
&. DONT KNOW
JH k : V'I,67'
-- 891 ----------
And how, interested~ have you been in the U'*S. Senate
campa i qn so far this year?
l. VERY MUCH INTERESTED:
3. SOM''WHiAT INTERESTED
5. NOT' MUCH INTERESTED
S. 2DN''T KNOW
~ M. 9 : V1'~69
N -31
rz0
N
~
~.
~
W
W
.
on

0'9-Oct-Fo4 WI:37 0lk'
PAGE . 9
M!IC'HI'GAN SURVEY, 8'
Now I e t' s ta l hc about your fee l i'n!gs t ornar ds the candida te s you
know somethi ng about.
I'11 read the name of, a person and 11 willi ask you to rate that person on
a thermometer that runs from 0 degrees to 100 degrees. Ratings between
50, and 100 degrees: mean that you feel favorabJe and' warm toward that
person. Ratings between 0 and 50 degrees mean that you dion't feel too
favorabie and are cool towards that person. You may use any number from
C to 100 to tel l me how favorable or un[avorabile your feei iings are for
each, person. If, you recognize the name but don't feel particularly warm
or cold toward the, persons you would rate the person at the 50 deg~ree
mark. If you don't reco~3nlze~the name, just let me know and we''lI go
on to the! next question.
Our f i rst person I s al02Rona Idl Reagana00~. How, wouil d you rate
him usi'ng this thermometer?
0-10Jl. ENTER NUMBfR
997. OiOESN' T RECCGNI'ZE NAME
998. DON'T KNOW WMtRE T0 RATE: CAN!T JUOGE
1U M:r N X'2 : V169
:V'I IF V'3'.04=N4' THEN V3Oy=TMF(1)
-- C1b-d ---- ------
(Ratiings between 50 degrees and 1010 degrees nean that you feel
f'avorabde and warm towardi that person. Ratings between 0 degrees
and'l 5') 9e9rees mean that you don't fee4 too favorable and are
roo4 toward that' penson. Youimay use any number from 0 to 100
to tel li me how favorable or unfavorabl'e your feel ingsl arel for
eachi person. )
Wallter Mon" le (How wouild' you rate him usi'ng thi's tfiermometerl~?'
Jack Lousma?
Car l! Uev i n?
0-10'0. ENTER NUMBER
997. DOESN'T RECOGN1ZE NAME
998. D'ON'T KN!0,W' WHEIRE' TO RATE: C'AN'T J'UDG'E
WWM Max> : V'170 <NUM 1tIe!> : V172
NuIM MttR> : V171
N-32

79-Ott-24
. MII'C'HI'GA(V SURVEY 8
- L2 a ----------
ae' C i i ke to know your i maress i ons of Rona l d Rea9an. I am
loinig to read a 1 ist of words and mhrases peop4 e use to:
describe po1 itical' f~iqu-res. After each one. I wouil'd like
you to: te:l1' me how much the word or phrase fits your
impressUon of, Ronald Rieagan.
The first phrase is "'intelligent.° Hon+ much would you say
the word intelligent fits your impression of Ronald Reagan:
s;Ireat dlea 1. somewhatp a 1 i tt l e.. or not a a 1 f?'
I. A, GREAT DEAL
2. SOMEWHAT
3. C'AN'T DECIDE (V'OLUMT'Ec'RSJ
4. A LITTLE
5. NOT AT ALL
p. OG:V"T KNOW
Jy N > : V'173
- C 2,b-d ----------
L
(How~ much would you say :C4 a'CL" fits yovr impressilon
of Rea.-jan: a gr eat diea l. somewhat, a' 1 i tt f e, or not at a l t?)
.
b.
c.
/0
moralpr ov i'daes strong 1 eadersh i p
understands the problems of' people like
you
1. A GREAT DEAL
2. SD!KEWHAT
3. CAW'T DECIDE (1VJLUMTER5)
4. A L IITTLE-.
5. WOT' AT ALL
9. DJN"T KNCW
JM x> : V174 <'NUM ft> : V17~6
Um +:> : V'175
N= 33

(Ji9!-0ct-84
- C3a ----------
y1CM+IGAN SURVEY 8
Now 3bout kal'ter Mondale. How much would you say °inteJligent"'
fits your impressi'on of h[m: a great deal, somewbate a little,
or not at al'I?'
1. A' GR'EAT' DEAL
2'. SOMIE'WHiAT'
3. CAN'T DECIDE (VOLUNTEERS)
4. A L1'TTLE
5'. NOT AT' ALL
8. IDON'T' K'NOIW
NUM v> : V'177'
- C 3 b-d' ----------
( t(ow murh wouil d,you say a04 a00 f i ts your i mpr ess i orn
of Mornda)e^: a great deal!. sornewhatW a(ittle, or not at all?)
b. moral
c. provides strong i'ea,dershilpp
do untier s'tands the pro'bl'ems of peopi e 1 i ke you
1i. A GREAT 0'EAL.
2. SOMEaihtAT
3. C'AN,6T DECI'DE' (VOLUNTEERS)
4. A LITTLE
5. NOT AT ALL
8. DON'T KNOW
,lUw r> : V1T8' <'NUMi M!> : V180.
NUM' N> : V179
-- C4a ----------
Na'M about Cari' Levin. How much wou ld you say ^iintei'1 iqent'"
fits your i'mpres'silon of him: a great deal. somewhat. a little,
or not at all?
1. A GREAT DEAL
2. SOMEWHAT
3. CAIN'T DECIDE (VOLUINTEEIR'S).
4. A LITTLE
5. NOT AT ALL
8. DOH'T KNOW
NUwi V> : V181
N-34'
C'1':37 P,
PAG". ~11
