Connect with us

News

Cross-Tabs: August 2024 Times/Siena Poll of the Likely Electorate

Published

on

Cross-Tabs: August 2024 Times/Siena Poll of the Likely Electorate

How This Poll Was Conducted

Here are the key things to know about these Times/Siena polls:

• Interviewers spoke with 619 registered voters in Michigan and 661 registered voters in Wisconsin from Aug. 5 to 8, and 693 registered voters in Pennsylvania from Aug. 6 to 9.

• Times/Siena polls are conducted by telephone, using live interviewers, in both English and Spanish. About 90 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 this poll, interviewers placed more than 237,000 calls to nearly 118,000 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 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 4.5 percentage points in Michigan, plus or minus 4 percentage points in Pennsylvania, and plus or minus 4.3 percentage points in Wisconsin. 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 polls in Michigan and Wisconsin were conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones from Aug. 5 to 8, 2024, and from Aug. 6 to 9, 2024, in Pennsylvania. In all, 1,973 registered voters were interviewed. When all states are joined together, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points for all registered voters and plus or minus 2.6 percentage points for the likely electorate.

The margin of sampling error among registered voters for each state poll is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points in Michigan, plus or minus 4 points in Pennsylvania and plus or minus 4.3 points in Wisconsin. Among the likely electorate, it is plus or minus 4.8 percentage points in Michigan, plus or minus 4.2 points in Pennsylvania and plus or minus 4.3 points in Wisconsin.

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.

Advertisement

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, 90 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 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 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) in Michigan, whether the respondent voted in 2020 in Wisconsin, and the voter file age of the respondent in Pennsylvania.

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)

• 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)

• The average recalled 2020 vote choice of respondents to the last three New York Times/Siena College polls, including the results of this poll before the recalled vote weight, in Wisconsin.

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. 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 1.17 for registered voters and 1.26 for the likely electorate in Pennsylvania, 1.25 for registered voters and 1.28 for the likely electorate in Wisconsin, and 1.33 for registered voters and 1.46 for likely voters in Michigan.

For the sample of completed interviews, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5.3 points for registered voters and plus or minus 5.5 points for the likely electorate in Michigan, plus or minus 4.5 points for registered voters and plus or minus 4.6 points for the likely electorate in Pennsylvania, and plus or minus 4.7 points for both registered voters and the likely electorate in Wisconsin.The design effect for the sample of completed interviews is 1.24 for registered voters and 1.33 for the likely electorate in Pennsylvania, 1.3 for registered voters and 1.32 for the likely electorate in Wisconsin, and 1.46 for registered voters and 1.57 for the likely electorate in Michigan.

Advertisement

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.

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

Where have OpenAI’s founders gone?

Published

on

Where have OpenAI’s founders gone?

Just two of OpenAI’s 11-strong founding team are still active at the ChatGPT maker, after an exodus following November’s attempted boardroom coup against chief executive Sam Altman.

Three co-founders have departed so far this year, including John Schulman, who defected to its artificial intelligence rival Anthropic this week. Greg Brockman, OpenAI’s president, also said on Monday he would be taking extended leave from the company.

A high rate of turnover is not unusual at a start-up. However, attrition of senior figures at OpenAI has stepped up in recent months following November’s leadership crisis, when Altman was fired by his board only to be reinstated days later.

Since then, the loss of executives and staffers working on AI safety and research has raised questions about the direction of the $86bn company, which is in a fierce battle to stay ahead of rivals including Google and Anthropic.

Some co-founders have absconded to rivals, others to launch their own AI companies, while the team’s most famous former member — Elon Musk — has become a vociferous critic of OpenAI in public and in the courts.

Advertisement

OpenAI had a larger number of founders than most Silicon Valley start-ups because Altman and Brockman wanted to build an AI supergroup of the top researchers in the field when it got started in 2015. Here is where those 11 founders are now.

Leavers

Greg Brockman

on a leave of absence since August 2024

Brockman is a core member of OpenAI’s founding team. He was persuaded by Altman and Musk to leave his job as chief technology officer at financial technology company Stripe and take on the same position at OpenAI.

He has been a key Altman ally since the beginning. When the board moved against Altman in a coup in November, Brockman was also removed as a director. The two returned to their posts together when the board backtracked five days later.

On Monday, the company’s president announced he would be taking a sabbatical for the rest of the year.

“First time to relax since co-founding OpenAI 9 years ago,” he wrote on X. “I’ve poured my life for the past 9 years into OpenAI, including the entirety of my marriage. Our work is important to me, but so is life.”

Advertisement

John Schulman

joined Anthropic in August 2024

Schulman, a research scientist who played a vital role in building the company’s ChatGPT chatbot, announced he would leave OpenAI on Monday. He was responsible for fine-tuning the company’s AI models and ensuring they behaved in a way that conformed to human values — a process known as alignment.

He will take up a similar role at rival start-up Anthropic, which itself was founded by ex-OpenAI researchers in 2021.

“This choice stems from my desire to deepen my focus on AI alignment, and to start a new chapter of my career where I can return to hands-on technical work, alongside people deeply engaged with the topics I’m most interested in,” Schulman said in a note to colleagues on Monday.

Ilya Sutskever

left to found Safe Superintelligence in May 2024

Sutskever left his position as OpenAI’s chief scientist six months after voting with the company’s board to remove Altman. Sutskever, one of the most prominent researchers in the field, reversed his position and backed the chief executive’s return a few days later.

Nonetheless, he has been largely absent from public view in the months since the abortive coup, and in May he left to start a company called Safe Superintelligence.

Andrej Karpathy

left to found Eureka Labs in February 2024

Karpathy, a research scientist who was advised at Stanford by “Godmother of AI” Fei-Fei Li, first left OpenAI in 2017 to join Tesla as a senior director. He returned to OpenAI in 2023 and left again a year later to launch Eureka Labs, which is building AI teaching assistants.‎

Durk Kingma

left for Google Brain in June 2018

Kingma, who worked on developing algorithms for generative AI models, left for Google in the summer of 2018. He has continued to lead research on large language models and image models at Google Brain, which merged with DeepMind last year.

Elon Musk

resigned from the board in 2018

Musk, who provided much of OpenAI’s early funding, left the company in 2018 after clashing with Altman over the direction of research. The billionaire launched a rival company, xAI, last year and claims he can overhaul OpenAI’s lead.

The Tesla, SpaceX and X chief has also launched a number of lawsuits against Altman and OpenAI, arguing this week that he was induced to invest in the AI company by its “fake humanitarian mission”.

Pamela Vagata

JOINED STRIPE in 2016

Vagata, listed as a founding member of OpenAI in the company’s launch announcement, makes no mention of the start-up in her LinkedIn profile. She joined Stripe as a technical leader in the fintech company’s AI team in 2016, and founded early-stage venture capital firm Pebblebed in 2021.

‎Vicki Cheung

JOINED LYFT in 2017

Cheung, who worked on language-learning app Duolingo before becoming OpenAI’s first engineer, left the company in 2017 to join ride-hailing start-up Lyft. In 2020 she founded machine learning start-up Gantry alongside former OpenAI researcher Josh Tobin.

Trevor Blackwell

left in 2017

Blackwell was a partner at Y Combinator, the San Francisco start-up accelerator that Altman ran before establishing OpenAI. He helped launch the AI company and left in 2017. A robotics enthusiast, he is now based in Gloucestershire, England.

‎Remainers

Sam Altman

Altman remains as OpenAI’s chief executive after surviving a boardroom coup in November, during which directors accused him of not being “consistently candid” with them. He was reinstated five days after being fired on the back of a campaign by employees and investors in OpenAI, including Microsoft.

The departure of other senior figures has left the 39-year-old as by far the most prominent figure at the company, and the reconstitution of the board after its failed ousting has further solidified his power.

Advertisement

Wojciech Zaremba

Polish computer scientist Zaremba remains at OpenAI where he works as a researcher. He called on the board to resign after they moved against Altman, and has since urged his chief executive and Musk to drop their “unnecessary fight”.

“It would be so much better to put your creative energy into building the future you dream of over a quarrel. May you (both) be happy and find peace,” he wrote in a post on X in March, signing off with a love heart.

Additional reporting by Madhumita Murgia

Continue Reading

News

Photos: Family of Michael Brown Jr. marches on Ferguson 10 years later

Published

on

Photos: Family of Michael Brown Jr. marches on Ferguson 10 years later

Michael Brown Sr., center, leads a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, outside of Normandy High School in Normandy. Michael Brown Jr., his son, was killed by a Ferguson police officer in 2014 only days after graduating from high school.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

On Aug. 9, 2014, Michael Brown Jr. was shot and killed by a white Ferguson, Mo., police officer.

Brown’s body laid in the street for hours before protests erupted in the north St. Louis County town and around the country. The moment was a flashpoint, sparking renewed calls for justice against police brutality and an emphasis on supporting Black communities.

Michael Brown Sr. and his wife Cal Brown founded the Chosen For Change Organization to turn their pain into purpose.

Advertisement

The nonprofit has a slew of community programming to support the families of those who have lost a child.

Lezley McSpadden, Brown Jr.’s mother, also founded The Michael O.D. Brown We Love Our Sons & Daughters Foundation in the wake of her son’s death.

On Friday, Brown Sr. led a multi-mile unity march from Normandy High School — where Brown Jr. graduated 8 days before he was killed — to Canfield Drive, the site of his son’s death.

“I’m not gonna never let the world forget about my son,” he told St. Louis Public Radio on Friday. “We wanted to show what he did in his life before the hashtag.”

Take a look at the march.

Advertisement
Protestors take the streets on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Normandy.

Protestors march in the streets during a unity march.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Advertisement

Trinaya’ Walker, 22, holds her daughter Bobbie Ann Atkins, 6, on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson. Walker said she is Brown Jr.’s sister.

Trinaya’ Walker, 22, holds her daughter Bobbie Ann Atkins, 6, during the unity march.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Hundreds of demonstrators take to the streets on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Hundreds of demonstrators take to the streets, during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Ebony Williams, 33, of The Ville, yells out “say his name!” on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Ebony Williams, 33, of The Ville, yells out “say his name!”, during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Adara Ameer, 19, of Florissant, on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, before a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Adara Ameer, 19, of Florissant waits for unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Advertisement
Left, Cornel West Demonstrators lay a thousand blue roses along Canfield Drive, the site where Michael Brown Jr. was killed by a white Ferguson police officer a decade ago, on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, in Ferguson.

Left, Cornel West speaks during a memorial service commemorating a decade after Brown Jr.’s police killing along Canfield Drive in Ferguson. Right, demonstrators lay a thousand blue roses along Canfield Drive, the site where Michael Brown Jr. was killed.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Advertisement

Protestors march streets during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Normandy.

Protestors march streets during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Roland Garner, 39, of St. Joseph, Missouri, joins hundreds of demonstrators on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Roland Garner, 39, of St. Joseph, Missouri, joins hundreds of demonstrators, during a unity march.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Angelique Kidd, 51, of Ferguson, protests on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Angelique Kidd, 51, of Ferguson, protests during the unity march.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Andrew Joseph, 50, of Tampa Fla., leads chants on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Andrew Joseph, 50, of Tampa Fla., leads chants, during the unity march.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Advertisement
Demonstrators lay a thousand blue roses along Canfield Drive, the site where Michael Brown Jr. was killed by a white Ferguson police officer a decade ago, on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, in Ferguson.

Demonstrators lay a thousand blue roses along Canfield Drive, the site where Michael Brown Jr. was killed.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Advertisement

Clara Holmes, 55, of north St. Louis, makes her way to Canfield Drive on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, during a unity march commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Clara Holmes, 55, of north St. Louis, makes her way to Canfield Drive.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

U.S. Rep. Cori Bush, D-St. Louis County, rests her arm on Michael Brown Sr. on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, during a memorial commemorating a decade after Michael Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

U.S. Rep. Cori Bush, D-St. Louis County, rests her arm on Michael Brown Sr.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Andrew Joseph, 50, of Tampa Fla., reflects on Michael Brown Jr.’s death alongside his father Michael Brown Sr., right, on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, at the end of a unity march commemorating a decade after Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Andrew Joseph, 50, of Tampa Fla., reflects on Michael Brown Jr.’s death alongside his father Michael Brown Sr.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Community activists raise their fists as Michael Brown Sr., center in St. Louis Cardinals hat, wipes his face on Friday, Aug. 9, 2024, during a Canfield Drive memorial service commemorating a decade after Brown Jr.’s police killing in Ferguson.

Community activists raise their fists as Michael Brown Sr., center in St. Louis Cardinals hat, wipes his face.

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Brian Munoz/St. Louis Public Radio

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Former YouTube chief Susan Wojcicki dies at 56

Published

on

Former YouTube chief Susan Wojcicki dies at 56

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Susan Wojcicki, one of Google’s earliest employees and the former chief executive of its video website YouTube, has died at 56.

Her husband Dennis Troper announced the news on Facebook. “It is with profound sadness that I share the news of Susan Wojcicki passing,” he said. “My beloved wife of 26 years and mother to our five children left us today after 2 years of living with non-small cell lung cancer.” He called her “a brilliant mind, a loving mother, and a dear friend to many”.

Sundar Pichai, chief executive of Google parent Alphabet, said in a post on X that he was “unbelievably saddened”.

Advertisement

“She is as core to the history of Google as anyone, and it’s hard to imagine the world without her,” he said. “She was an incredible person, leader and friend who had a tremendous impact on the world.”

During Google’s earliest days, its founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin built the search engine from Wojcicki’s garage at her home in Menlo Park. In 1999, she became its 16th employee, running its advertising business for almost 15 years. After being involved in Google’s acquisition of YouTube in 2006, she ran the video site from 2014 until she stepped down last year.

Continue Reading

Trending