News
Cross-Tabs: August 2024 Times/Siena Poll of the Likely Electorate in North Carolina
How This Poll Was Conducted
Here are the key things to know about these Times/Siena polls:
• Interviewers spoke with 677 registered voters in Arizona from Aug. 8 to 15; 661 registered voters in Georgia and 655 registered voters in North Carolina from Aug. 9 to 14; and 677 registered voters in Nevada from Aug. 12 to 15.
• Times/Siena polls are conducted by telephone, using live interviewers, in both English and Spanish. More than 95 percent of respondents were contacted on a cellphone for these polls.
• Voters are selected for Times/Siena surveys from a list of registered voters. The list contains information on the demographic characteristics of every registered voter, allowing us to make sure we reach the right number of voters of each party, race and region. For these polls, interviewers placed more than 276,000 calls to nearly 183,000 voters.
• To further ensure that the results reflect the entire voting population, not just those willing to take a poll, we give more weight to respondents from demographic groups that are underrepresented among survey respondents, like people without a college degree. You can see more information about the characteristics of our respondents and the weighted sample at the bottom of the page, under “Composition of the Sample.”
• The margin of sampling error among registered voters is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points across the four states, plus or minus 4.1 percentage points in Arizona and Georgia, and plus or minus 4.2 percentage points in Nevada and North Carolina. In theory, this means that the results should reflect the views of the overall population most of the time, though many other challenges create additional sources of error. When computing the difference between two values — such as a candidate’s lead in a race — the margin of error is twice as large.
If you want to read more about how and why we conduct our polls, you can see answers to frequently asked questions and submit your own questions here.
Full Methodology
The New York Times/Siena College polls were conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones in Arizona from Aug. 8 to 15, 2024; in Georgia and North Carolina from Aug. 9 to 14, 2024; and in Nevada from Aug. 12 to 15, 2024. In all, 2,670 registered voters were interviewed. When all states are joined together, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points for all registered voters and plus or minus 2.2 percentage points for the likely electorate.
The margin of sampling error among registered voters for each state poll is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points in Arizona and Georgia, and plus or minus 4.2 percentage points in Nevada and North Carolina. Among the likely electorate, it is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada, and plus or minus 4.2 points in North Carolina.
Sample
The survey is a response rate-adjusted stratified sample of registered voters on the L2 voter file. The sample was selected by The New York Times in multiple steps to account for differential telephone coverage, nonresponse and significant variation in the productivity of telephone numbers by state.
The L2 voter file for each state was stratified by statehouse district, party, race, gender, marital status, household size, turnout history, age and homeownership. The proportion of registrants with a telephone number and the mean expected response rate, based on prior Times/Siena polls, were calculated for each stratum. The initial selection weight was equal to the reciprocal of a stratum’s mean telephone coverage and modeled response rate. For respondents with multiple telephone numbers on the L2 file, the number with the highest modeled response rate was selected.
Fielding
The samples for each state were stratified by political party, race and region and were fielded by the Siena College Research Institute, with additional field work by ReconMR, the Public Opinion Research Laboratory at the University of North Florida, and the Institute of Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College. Interviewers asked for the person named on the voter file and ended the interview if the intended respondent was not available. Overall, 96 percent of respondents were reached on a cellular telephone.
The instrument was translated into Spanish by ReconMR. Bilingual interviewers began the interview in English and were instructed to follow the lead of the respondent in determining whether to conduct the survey in English or Spanish. Monolingual Spanish-speaking respondents who were initially contacted by English-speaking interviewers were recontacted by Spanish-speaking interviewers. Overall, 13 percent of interviews among self-reported Hispanics were conducted in Spanish, including 12 percent of weighted interviews.
An interview was determined to be complete for the purposes of inclusion in the ballot test question if the respondent did not drop out of the survey by the end of the two self-reported variables used in weighting — age and education — and answered at least one of the age, education, race or presidential election ballot test questions.
Weighting — registered voters
The survey was weighted by The Times using the R survey package in multiple steps.
First, the sample was adjusted for unequal probability of selection by stratum.
Second, the sample was weighted to match voter file-based parameters for the characteristics of registered voters.
The following targets were used:
• Party (party registration if available in the state, else classification based on participation in partisan primaries if available in the state, else classification based on a model of vote choice in prior Times/Siena polls) by whether the respondent’s race is modeled as white or nonwhite (L2 model)
• Age (Self-reported age, or voter file age if the respondent refuses) by gender (L2)
• Race or ethnicity (L2 model)
• Education (four categories of self-reported education level, weighted to match NYT-based targets derived from Times/Siena polls, census data and the L2 voter file)
• White/non-white race by college or non-college educational attainment (L2 model of race weighted to match NYT-based targets for self-reported education)
• Marital status (L2 model)
• Home ownership (L2 model)
• State region (NYT classifications)
• Turnout history (NYT classifications based on L2 data)
• Method of voting in the 2020 elections (NYT classifications based on L2 data)
• History of voting in the 2020 presidential primary, in North Carolina (L2)
• Major party registration or participation in party primary, in Arizona (NYT classifications based on L2 data)
• Census tract educational attainment, in Arizona and Nevada
Finally, the sample of respondents who completed all questions in the survey was weighted identically, as well as to the result for the general election horse race question (including leaners) on the full sample.
Weighting — likely electorate
The survey was weighted by The Times using the R survey package in multiple steps.
First, the samples were adjusted for unequal probability of selection by stratum.
Second, the first-stage weight was adjusted to account for the probability that a registrant would vote in the 2024 election, based on a model of turnout in the 2020 election.
Third, the sample was weighted to match targets for the composition of the likely electorate. The targets for the composition of the likely electorate were derived by aggregating the individual-level turnout estimates described in the previous step for registrants on the L2 voter file. The categories used in weighting were the same as those previously mentioned for registered voters.
Fourth, the initial likely electorate weight was adjusted to incorporate self-reported intention to vote. Four-fifths of the final probability that a registrant would vote in the 2024 election was based on their ex ante modeled turnout score and one-fifth based on their self-reported intentions, based on prior Times/Siena polls, including a penalty to account for the tendency of survey respondents to turn out at higher rates than nonrespondents. The final likely electorate weight was equal to the modeled electorate rake weight, multiplied by the final turnout probability and divided by the ex ante modeled turnout probability.
Finally, the sample of respondents who completed all questions in the survey was weighted identically, as well as to the result for the general election horse race question (including leaners) on the full sample.
The margin of error accounts for the survey’s design effect, a measure of the loss of statistical power due to survey design and weighting. The design effect for the full sample is 1.2 for registered voters and 1.35 for the likely electorate in Arizona, 1.18 for registered voters and 1.35 for the likely electorate in Georgia,1.22 for registered voters and 1.37 for the likely electorate in Nevada, and 1.18 for registered voters and 1.19 for likely voters in North Carolina.
For the sample of completed interviews, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.6 points for registered voters and plus or minus 4.8 points for the likely electorate in Arizona, plus or minus 4.7 points for registered voters and plus or minus 5.1 points for the likely electorate in Georgia, plus or minus 4.6 points for registered voters and plus or minus 4.8 points for the likely electorate in Nevada, plus or minus 4.7 points for registered voters and plus or minus 4.7 points for the likely electorate in North Carolina.
The design effect for the sample of completed interviews is 1.24 for registered voters and 1.35 for the likely electorate in Arizona, 1.22 for registered voters and 1.45 for the likely electorate in Georgia, 1.24 for registered voters and 1.35 for the likely electorate in Nevada, and 1.28 for registered voters and 1.28 for the likely electorate in North Carolina.
Historically, The Times/Siena Poll’s error at the 95th percentile has been plus or minus 5.1 percentage points in surveys taken over the final three weeks before an election. Real-world error includes sources of error beyond sampling error, such as nonresponse bias, coverage error, late shifts among undecided voters and error in estimating the composition of the electorate.
For decades, immigrants who have followed the rules and have not broken the law have had hopes of earning a green card, a document that allows them to live legally in the United States and gain a path to citizenship.
But under new guidance issued by the Trump administration, immigrants can now be denied a green card for expressing political opinions, such as participating in pro-Palestinian campus protests, posting criticism of Israel on social media and desecrating the American flag, according to internal Department of Homeland Security training materials reviewed by The New York Times.
The documents, which have not been previously reported, show how expansively the Trump administration is carrying out a directive from last August to vet green card applicants for “anti-American” and “antisemitic” views.
The administration includes criticism of Israel as a potentially disqualifying factor, with the training materials citing as an example of questionable speech a social media post that declares, “Stop Israeli Terror in Palestine” and shows the Israeli flag crossed out.
The materials were distributed last month to immigration officers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and handles applications for green cards and other forms of legal status.
They reflect how U.S.C.I.S. — long considered the gateway agency for legal migration — has rapidly transformed under President Trump into another cog in his administration’s deportation machine. The agency has worked to strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship and has hired armed federal agents to investigate immigration crimes.
The administration is also granting permanent legal residency to far fewer applicants. Green card approvals have fallen by more than half in recent months, according to a Times analysis of agency data.
“There is no room in America for aliens who espouse anti-American ideologies or support terrorist organizations,” Joseph Edlow, the agency’s director, told Congress in February.
Critics of Mr. Trump’s approach say the administration is seeking to restrict legitimate political speech, and has conflated opposition to Israeli government policies with antisemitism.
Basing green card decisions on “ideological screenings is fundamentally un-American and should have no place in a country built on the promise of free expression,” said Amanda Baran, a senior agency official under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Administration officials said they were defending American values.
“If you hate America, you have no business demanding to live in America,” said Zach Kahler, a spokesman for U.S.C.I.S.
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration’s policies had “nothing to do with free speech” and were meant to protect “American institutions, the safety of citizens, national security and the freedoms of the United States.”
The administration has moved aggressively against immigrants for expressing political views that officials have deemed anti-American, making ideology a central part of its immigration vetting process. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has revoked the visas of pro-Palestinian student activists, including one who wrote a column criticizing her university’s response to pro-Palestinian demands.
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed reviewing the social media histories of tourists seeking to visit the United States.
Immigration officers have significant discretion in deciding whether to grant foreigners long-term permanent residence. They have long considered a variety of factors, including criminal records, national security threats, family ties to the United States and employment histories.
Ideology has also traditionally been one of those factors. In some cases, U.S. law forbids officers from granting green cards to people who have belonged to a Communist or other “totalitarian” political party, have promoted anarchy or have called for the overthrow of the U.S. government by “force or violence or other unconstitutional means.”
But in the past, immigration officers have focused on statements that could incite or encourage violence, given concerns about infringing on constitutionally protected speech, former U.S.C.I.S. officials said.
The new training materials reviewed by The Times guide immigration officers through the factors they should consider when ruling on green card applications. They discourage officers from granting green cards to people with a history of “endorsing, promoting or supporting anti-American views” or “antisemitic terrorism, ideologies or groups.”
Immigration officers have been told to weigh those factors as “overwhelmingly negative.”
The documents list support for “subversive” ideologies as among other factors that could lead to an application being rejected. As an example, the materials point to someone “holding a sign advocating overthrow of the U.S. government.”
In addition, the guidance describes the desecration of the American flag as a negative factor, citing Mr. Trump’s executive order last year directing the Justice Department to prosecute protesters who burn the flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.
Immigration officers have also been told to scrutinize applicants who encourage antisemitism “through rhetorical or physical actions.” They were instructed to “focus particularly on aliens who engaged in on-campus anti-American and antisemitic activities” after the Hamas attacks against Israel in 2023, the documents show.
Further examples in the documents of conduct characterized as antisemitic include a social media post showing a map of Israel with the nation’s name crossed out and replaced with the word “Palestine.” Another illustrative post suggests that Israelis should “taste what people in Gaza are tasting.”
Immigration officers must elevate all cases involving “potential anti-American and/or antisemitic conduct or ideology” to their managers and to the agency’s general counsel’s office for review, according to the documents.
In recent months, the agency has also changed the way it refers to the employees who adjudicate green card applications, long known as “immigration services officers.” In job postings, it now calls them “homeland defenders.”
“Protect your homeland and defend your culture,” one posting says.
Steven Rich contributed reporting.
Additional work by Jana Tauschinski
Oil and gas tanker location and destination data are from Kpler. The map shows the latest position for vessels with an active AIS signal on April 19–20, filtered by minimum capacity thresholds: crude tankers of at least 50,000 deadweight tonnage (DWT); oil product tankers of at least 55,000 DWT; oil/chemical tankers of at least 40,000 DWT; LNG carriers of at least 150,000 cubic metres; and LPG carriers of at least 50,000 cubic metres. Net fossil fuel import data by country are based on Ember analysis of the IEA World Energy Balances 2023.
A 26-year-old man is facing two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of two University of South Florida doctoral students who went missing last week, local authorities said Saturday.
The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office in Florida said that evidence presented to the state attorney’s office resulted in the charges against Hisham Abugharbieh, the roommate of Zamil Limon, one of the doctoral students.
Abugharbieh is accused of premediated murder with a weapon. He was arrested on Friday, the same day Limon was found dead.
The family of Nahida Bristy, the other doctoral student, told CBS News that police said she is also likely dead. That is based on the volume of blood discovered at Abugharbieh’s residence, which he shared with Limon.
“Police told us she is no longer with us,” Bristy’s brother, Zahid Prato, said early Saturday.
The family was told her body may never be found and police believe she may have been dismembered, according to Prato.
CBS News has reached out to police for more information.
Authorities said in a statement Saturday they were still searching for Bristy.
Limon’s remains were found on the Howard Franklin Bridge in Tampa Friday morning, Chief Deputy Joseph Maurer with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office said. His cause of death was pending autopsy results.
Deputies with the sheriff’s office took Abugharbieh into custody on Friday after responding to a domestic violence call at a home in the Lake Forest Community, a neighborhood near USF’s Tampa campus, officials said. He also faces charges of domestic violence and evidence tampering, as well as a charge of failing to report a death to law enforcement.
Limon and Bristy, both 27, had last been seen in the Tampa area on April 16.
Limon was studying the use of AI in environmental science and was set to present his doctoral thesis this week, his family said. Bristy is studying chemical engineering.
-
Washington5 minutes agoWashington Nationals recall Andrés Chaparro
-
Wisconsin11 minutes agoColumbia County’s The Dump Bar & Grill wins Wisconsin’s best burger award
-
West Virginia17 minutes agoShooting leads to arrests in Parkersburg – WV MetroNews
-
Wyoming23 minutes agoWyoming’s road safety faces ‘significant’ funding shortfall, report finds
-
Crypto29 minutes agoBelieve Founder Arrested on Strangulation Charges as Token Collapses 99%
-
Finance35 minutes ago
Fayette schools face accounting concerns as outside reviews continue
-
Fitness41 minutes agoThis High-Performance, Stylish Activewear Brand Has Topped My List of Workout Clothes for Nearly a Decade
-
Movie Reviews53 minutes ago1986 Movie Reviews – 8 Million Ways to Die, Crimewave, and Violets are Blue | The Nerdy