Politics
A Simple Experiment Reveals Why It’s So Hard to Measure R.F.K. Jr.’s Support
On top of all the other challenges that pollsters have faced in the past two presidential elections, this year has an additional, potentially significant, complication: a well-known third-party candidate.
Measuring support for third-party candidates has long been a particular challenge for pollsters. But it has been decades since the country has seen a third-party candidate as prominent as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has an average of about 10 percent of the vote in national polls.
Historically, polls overstate support for third-party candidates. When it comes to Mr. Kennedy, the biggest question may be by how much.
Kenny Holston/The New York Times
Consider this: In a two-part experiment conducted by The New York Times and the research firm Ipsos, a seemingly subtle difference across two versions yielded significantly different results for Mr. Kennedy.
What’s more, a candidate who is not on the ballot anywhere — a Times editor picked for inclusion thanks to his generic-sounding name — received a non-negligible share of support, highlighting just how much support for third-party candidates can come down to frustration with major-party candidates and a yearning for more options.
What does this all mean? It’s tempting to interpret these results as ungenerous to both voters and to polling. But the results say something real about how preferences work, and the central conundrum when it comes to third-party candidates. (This experiment is separate from Times/Siena College polling, though it was conducted with the same standards and rigor that we apply to all of our polling.)
In short: Much of what influences third-party candidate support isn’t just a straightforward desire to see that person become president. This poses a challenge for pollsters no matter what they do: Simply by listing third-party candidates, a poll might overstate their support. If a poll doesn’t list them, however, it can’t capture their support at all.
This year, to combat that concern, many reputable pollsters ask both versions of the question: one that poses a simple head-to-head contest between major-party candidates, and one that includes third-party candidates who may be on the ballot.
And which question gets asked first is where the difference comes in.
Question order matters
Here is the longer question asked by Times/Ipsos that includes the full field:
The first two major-party candidates were rotated with each other, and the third-party candidates were rotated separately.
It contains a total of six options: the major-party candidates, the three established third-party candidates who have achieved ballot access in at least one swing state, and our wild card, William Davis, at No. 6.
And this is the shorter question that includes just President Biden vs. Donald J. Trump:
Our experiment worked like this: All respondents were shown both the long and short questions, but half were shown the full list first, and the other half were first shown the two-way race.
Among those who saw the long list first, Mr. Kennedy garnered 7 percent of the vote.
But among those respondents who encountered the head-to-head contest before seeing the full list, Mr. Kennedy’s support shot up six percentage points to 13 percent.
Why the increase, if the questions are the same? There are many factors that can explain this, but it is at least partly related to a phenomenon that pollsters call expressive responding. This is when people might use a survey response to show their frustration or express a particular feeling that’s not exactly what is being asked.
In this case, many respondents seem to be using the second question to convey frustration with the choices for president in the first question, whether or not their answers reflect their full views. When respondents have already been given a chance to express their support for one of the two major-party candidates, they seem to be more likely to register a protest of that first choice with their response to the fuller ballot. Some of the respondents given the longer list first are also probably expressing their frustration with the major-party candidates, but our results help demonstrate that effect is magnified when the longest list of candidates is asked second.
[You can find the full results of the poll, including the exact questions that were asked and how the poll was conducted, here.]
That might also explain why Mr. Davis, the Times editor who has no aspirations for higher office, won the support of about 1.5 percent of respondents, putting him on par with an actual Libertarian Party candidate. His support was only slightly lower among respondents who saw the third-party candidates first — evidence that voter frustration, though less pronounced under that scenario, still exists.
What’s more, Mr. Davis gets 4 percent among voters who feel unfavorably toward Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump.
The effects of this phenomenon show up when looking across many high-quality polls. Among 11 recent national polls, those that listed third-party candidates as the second question generally saw higher support for those candidates when compared with the polls that showed third-party candidates as the first question. (In the latest Times/Siena battleground polls released Monday, Mr. Kennedy was listed in the first question and received 10 percent support across the six states.)
An experiment like this can help us get a rough sense of how much support for Mr. Kennedy, and other third-party candidates, might come from voters expressing their frustration. But it also puts into perspective just how much his support can vary across polls and how hard it is to judge his real support.
It also illustrates some of the limitations surveys face. Pollsters can rely only on what voters tell us, and even voters themselves might not have fully thought through some of these questions.
Are voters consciously telling us they plan to vote for Mr. Kennedy, knowing that in the end they might support one of the two major-party candidates? Probably not. But they might be considering their options at a time when these decisions feel fairly abstract.
Is Kennedy a unique case?
History shows that third-party candidates often poll best in the spring and summer before an election — when everything feels fairly hypothetical — but lose steam as the election nears. Looking back at some of the strongest modern third-party candidates like Ross Perot or John Anderson, they often follow a similar path: strong support early in the race that slowly recedes by Election Day.
There’s at least one reason to believe Mr. Kennedy’s support may last longer: his name. In the Times/Siena battleground polls, we asked his supporters why they planned to vote for him. While most listed distaste for the alternatives as their motivation, for a handful — about 7 percent — his family is exactly why they are supporting him, even as many of his relatives have disavowed his candidacy. As one respondent put it: “Because he is a Kennedy.”
But current conditions are also ripe to have inflated third-party support. The two major-party candidates are deeply unpopular, providing an outlet for the type of expressive responding that pollsters worry about. And in our latest Times/Siena swing state polls, support for Mr. Kennedy appeared weak. Only about 30 percent of his supporters said they definitely planned to vote for him, compared with nearly 80 percent of Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden’s supporters who said they definitely planned to vote for their candidate.
So perhaps Mr. Davis, the Times editor, should not consider giving up his job and hitting the campaign trail anytime soon. But poll consumers should consider that even the best polls are imperfect, and it’s important to understand potential sources of error.
This year, Mr. Kennedy’s support is likely a big one.
Politics
Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power
One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.
Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.
“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”
The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.
While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.
The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.
And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.
That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.
It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.
That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.
That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.
That is true in the streets of America today.
Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Politics
Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.
The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.
USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.
The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs.
HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.
‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL
The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud. (AP Digital Embed)
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.
Politics
Washington National Opera is leaving the Kennedy Center in wake of Trump upset
In what might be the most decisive critique yet of President Trump’s remake of the Kennedy Center, the Washington National Opera’s board approved a resolution on Friday to leave the venue it has occupied since 1971.
“Today, the Washington National Opera announced its decision to seek an amicable early termination of its affiliation agreement with the Kennedy Center and resume operations as a fully independent nonprofit entity,” the company said in a statement to the Associated Press.
Roma Daravi, Kennedy Center’s vice president of public relations, described the relationship with Washington National Opera as “financially challenging.”
“After careful consideration, we have made the difficult decision to part ways with the WNO due to a financially challenging relationship,” Daravi said in a statement. “We believe this represents the best path forward for both organizations and enables us to make responsible choices that support the financial stability and long-term future of the Trump Kennedy Center.”
Kennedy Center President Ambassador Richard Grenell tweeted that the call was made by the Kennedy Center, writing that its leadership had “approached the Opera leadership last year with this idea and they began to be open to it.”
“Having an exclusive relationship has been extremely expensive and limiting in choice and variety,” Grenell wrote. “We have spent millions of dollars to support the Washington Opera’s exclusivity and yet they were still millions of dollars in the hole – and getting worse.”
WNO’s decision to vacate the Kennedy Center’s 2,364-seat Opera House comes amid a wave of artist cancellations that came after the venue’s board voted to rename the center the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. New signage featuring Trump’s name went up on the building’s exterior just days after the vote while debate raged over whether an official name change could be made without congressional approval.
That same day, Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) — an ex officio member of the board — wrote on social media that the vote was not unanimous and that she and others who might have voiced their dissent were muted on the call.
Grenell countered that ex officio members don’t get a vote.
Cancellations soon began to mount — as did Kennedy Center‘s rebukes against the artists who chose not to appear. Jazz drummer Chuck Redd pulled out of his annual Christmas Eve concert; jazz supergroup the Cookers nixed New Year’s Eve shows; New York-based Doug Varone and Dancers dropped out of April performances; and Grammy Award-winning banjo player Béla Fleck wrote on social media that he would no longer play at the venue in February.
WNO’s departure, however, represents a new level of artist defection. The company’s name is synonymous with the Kennedy Center and it has served as an artistic center of gravity for the complex since the building first opened.
-
Detroit, MI7 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology4 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Dallas, TX2 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Iowa4 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Health6 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska3 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Delaware1 day agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach