Connect with us

News

Cross-Tabs: April 2024 Times/Siena Poll of Registered Voters Nationwide

Published

on

Cross-Tabs: April 2024 Times/Siena Poll of Registered Voters Nationwide

How This Poll Was Conducted

Here are the key things to know about this Times/Siena poll:

• We spoke with 1,059 registered voters from April 7 to 11, 2024.

• Our 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 this poll.

• Voters are selected for the survey 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 this poll, we placed nearly 127,000 calls to more than 93,000 voters.

Advertisement

• 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 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 poll’s margin of sampling error among registered voters is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points. 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

Advertisement

The New York Times/Siena College poll of 1,059 registered voters nationwide, including 875 who completed the full survey, was conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones from April 7 to 11, 2024. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for the likely electorate. Among those who completed the full survey, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.7 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 3.9 percentage points for the likely electorate.

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.

First, records were selected by state. To adjust for noncoverage bias, the L2 voter file was stratified by statehouse district, party, race, gender, marital status, household size, turnout history, age and home ownership. The proportion of registrants with a telephone number and the mean expected response rate were calculated for each stratum. The mean expected response rate was based on a model of unit nonresponse in prior Times/Siena surveys. 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.

Second, state records were selected for the national sample. The number of records selected by state was based on a model of unit nonresponse in prior Times/Siena national surveys as a function of state, telephone number quality and other demographic and political characteristics. The state’s share of records was equal to the reciprocal of the mean response rate of the state’s records, divided by the national sum of the weights.

Advertisement

Fielding

The sample was stratified according to political party, race and region and fielded by the Siena College Research Institute, with additional field work by ReconMR, the Public Opinion Research Laboratory at the University of North Florida, the Institute of Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College, and the Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research at Winthrop University in South Carolina. Interviewers asked for the person named on the voter file and ended the interview if the intended respondent was not available. Overall, 95 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, 12 percent of interviews among self-reported Hispanics were conducted in Spanish, including 13 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

Advertisement

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, or 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)

Advertisement

• 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)

Advertisement

• Home ownership (L2 model)

• National region (NYT classifications by state)

• Turnout history (NYT classifications based on L2 data)

• Method of voting in the 2020 elections (NYT classifications based on L2 data)

• Metropolitan status (2013 NCHS Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties)

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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 intention. The final probability that a registrant would vote in the 2024 election was four-fifths 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 1.19 for registered voters and 1.39 for the likely electorate. The design effect for the sample of completed interviews is 1.23 for registered voters and 1.4 for the likely electorate.

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Donald Trump says he ‘may or may not’ strike Iran

Published

on

Donald Trump says he ‘may or may not’ strike Iran

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Donald Trump has made his most explicit comments yet about possible US military action against Iran, saying that the next week would be “very big” in determining the course of the war between Israel and the Islamic republic.

Speaking after Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Washington of “irreparable damage” if it intervened, Trump suggested Tehran wanted to negotiate but had left it perilously late.

“I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,” Trump said at the White House on Wednesday morning, a day after receiving a Situation Room briefing on the conflict.

Advertisement

“The next week is going to be very big — maybe less than a week,” he added in remarks that hinted at a possible timeframe for the US decision.

Hours later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement that he had a “very warm” conversation with Trump on Tuesday night.

Netanyahu said Israel was “advancing step by step” to remove Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile threats, adding: “We are attacking nuclear installations, missiles, command centres and the symbols of the regime.”

But he also acknowledged that Israel was “sustaining many losses, painful losses” from Iran’s missile strikes. 

The Pentagon on Monday ordered the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and three missile-guided destroyers to redeploy from the South China Sea to the Middle East, a journey that is likely to take about a week.

Advertisement

The US president said he had not given Netanyahu any indication of greater US involvement in the strikes against Iran.

But he said he had told Netanyahu to “keep going” with his attacks.

Trump added that Tehran, which was engaged in indirect talks with Washington over its nuclear programme before Israel launched its war, had suggested sending a delegation to the White House for talks. He described the move as “courageous”, even though he said Iran was “totally defenceless” and in an “unsustainable” position.

“Iran’s got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate,” he said, adding that he had told the Iranians “it’s very late to be talking”, while cautioning “nothing’s too late.”

Oil prices fell after Trump’s remarks, which investors saw as potentially dovish, with the Brent crude benchmark down 2 per cent from Tuesday’s close, before it pared back some of its losses.

Advertisement

However, Iran’s mission to the UN denied Trump’s account, posting on X: “No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House . . . Iran does NOT negotiate under duress.”

In a televised message to the Iranian people earlier in the day, Khamenei hit out at Trump’s call for Tehran’s “unconditional surrender”, which the US president suggests would mean the complete destruction of the country’s nuclear programme.

Israel says the programme is aimed at developing a weapon, although Iran says it is purely peaceful.

“Those with wisdom who know Iran, its people and history, will never use the language of threat to address this nation because they will never surrender,” the Iranian supreme leader said.

“The Americans should know that any US military engagement will undoubtedly result in irreparable damage,” he added.

Advertisement

When asked about Khamenei’s comments, Trump said: “I say, ‘good luck’.”

Testifying before Congress on Wednesday, US defence secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon “stands ready to execute” any decision the president makes about going to war, though he declined to say whether the Pentagon would assist Israel in striking Iran.

“President Trump’s word means something. The world understands that. And at the defence department our job is to stand ready and prepared with options,” Hegseth said. “We already have in many ways . . . re-established deterrence. The question is, in the coming days exactly what direction that goes.”

Should Trump decide to involve the US more directly, he could make the most decisive difference by striking Fordow, a key Iranian nuclear facility buried half a kilometre beneath a mountain, with US B-2 bombers and 30,000-pound GBU-57 massive ordnance penetrators, known as “bunker busters”.

Earlier on Wednesday, Israel said it had hit a production site to make centrifuges to enrich uranium — a process that can yield both nuclear fuel and weapons-grade material — as well as sites manufacturing parts for surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles.

Advertisement

Later in the evening, an Iranian missile salvo targeted Tel Aviv and central Israel, with early reports suggesting all the projectiles had been intercepted.

Additional reporting by Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington, Neri Zilber in Tel Aviv and Andrew England in London

Continue Reading

News

What's in the Senate's version of Trump's 'big bill'?

Published

on

What's in the Senate's version of Trump's 'big bill'?

For more politics coverage and analysis, sign up for Here’s the Deal, our weekly politics newsletter, here.


The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (let’s say “OBBBA”) is President Donald Trump’s signature agenda item in Congress.

It will affect the daily lives of tens of millions of Americans. It is a massive project, with potentially the largest tax cuts, spending cuts and additions to the national debt in U.S. history.

WATCH: Can Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” make it through the Senate?

This week, we have a critical, new development to dive into: the Senate Finance Committee’s own draft of how it wants to handle tax cuts and Medicaid cuts.

Advertisement

(For the most adventurous among us, all 549 pages can be found here.)

The big picture

  • Tax cuts. The Senate draft would add and lengthen some tax cuts, both for businesses and individuals.
  • Green energy cuts. It would slightly delay the elimination of tax credits for solar and wind energy. The Senate draft would push back cuts for nuclear, geothermal and hydropower far more significantly.
  • Medicaid cuts. It would cut Medicaid more than the House-passed bill.

OK, let’s go a little deeper.

A close-up of the words “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” printed on an agenda for a House Rules Committee’s hearing in May on President Donald Trump’s plan for extensive tax cuts. Photo by Nathan Howard/Reuters

Some tax specifics

  • Individual tax rates. Senate and House Republicans are in sync on this. They would make current tax rates permanent. Without action, nearly all individuals will see a tax increase.
  • Standard deductions. The Senate draft would give most adults a bigger tax deduction from the start. Without extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, the standard deduction that many individuals take to lower their tax burden is slated to decrease nearly in half at the end of the year. The Senate would not just keep but raise the deduction amounts — to $16,000 for individuals and $32,000 for married couples filing jointly.
  • Child tax credit. The current tax credit of $2,000 per child is set to drop to $1,000 at the end of the year. The Senate would raise the credit to $2,200 permanently. The House would raise the credit to $2,500, but only until 2028.

Green energy

  • A slash to green energy funds. The House and Senate are both moving to eliminate major tax credits for wind and solar from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
  • But the Senate gives a slightly longer phase-out, allowing a partial tax credit for projects that start construction next year or in 2027. The House would end the credit almost as soon as the bill is enacted.

Medicaid

  • Targeting the “provider” tax. This is the most notable cut that the Senate draft is adding. Right now, states use a loophole to help them get more federal dollars for Medicaid. They tax hospitals and doctors (a “provider tax”) and spend that money back with the hospitals and doctors. The more states spend, the more the federal government will match.
  • A cut on this tax. For states that expanded Medicaid, the Senate draft would gradually reduce the maximum amount of provider taxes, which is currently up to 6%, until it reaches a 3.5% threshold by 2031. Many Republicans like this reform, but others say it would significantly cut funds available for Medicaid. The House bill would block new provider taxes.
  • Work requirements. Both the House and Senate would add an 80-hours-a-month work requirement for “able-bodied” adults, or those without disabilities, on Medicaid. The Senate makes one significant change: exempting parents of children under 14 years old from the requirement. (There currently is no federal work requirement for Medicaid.)

What now?

This Senate version is experiencing some initial turbulence.

Four Republican senators have openly questioned the Medicaid cuts in the House bill: Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Susan Collins of Maine and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

And now, West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice has told a Semafor reporter that he wants the Senate’s Medicaid section to revert to the House version, which would ban new or increased provider taxes.

Hawley told me Tuesday that the cut to the provider tax was a total surprise to him and others. Trump, too, was surprised when alerted about the change and its ramifications for rural hospitals, Hawley said.

Advertisement

This is not unusual. Big bills often have big problems when they are released.

But. Republicans are trying to get this historic legislation through Congress — not just the Senate — in the next two weeks.

At this point in the process, similar large bills (think the Affordable Care Act) usually take months to get through the Senate and back through the House again.

Republicans are determined to pass a version of the bill, but increasingly my sources are saying the question is “not if, but when.”

Support PBS News Hour

Advertisement

Your donation makes a difference in these uncertain times.


Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Inside Trump’s Shifting Stance on Iran

Published

on

Video: Inside Trump’s Shifting Stance on Iran

President Trump spent the first months of his term holding back Israel’s push for an assault on Iran’s nuclear program. With the war underway, he has now expressed support for Israel. Jonathan Swan, a White House reporter for The New York Times, breaks down how the president got to this point.

Continue Reading

Trending