News
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.
• 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
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.
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
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.
• 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)
• 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.
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 1.17 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.
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.
News
The Maine Town That Actually Wants a Data Center
This year, Maine nearly became the first state to pass a statewide moratorium on new data centers. But before the law could take effect, supporters of an A.I. data center project in the small town of Jay rallied to fight the ban — and won. So why do residents there want one? We traveled to Jay to find out.
News
The Supreme Court says the U.S. can turn away asylum seekers at the border
The U.S. Supreme Court
Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed the Trump administration a tool that could make it far more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the United States.
Asylum is a form of legal protection available to people fleeing persecution in their home countries if they meet certain criteria. Under U.S. law, an asylum seeker who “arrives in” the U.S. is entitled to apply for asylum and generally cannot be removed from the country until their asylum application is processed.
By a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the country, effectively keeping them from applying for asylum.
The Obama administration was the first to try stemming the flow of asylum seekers that way. But the lower courts blocked the policy on grounds that it violated federal law by denying asylum to people who otherwise would have qualified for it, had they been permitted to literally put one foot over the border.
The Trump administration, however, sought to revive the policy, contending that the lower court’s ruling “deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and preventing overcrowding at ports of entry.” And on Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that because asylum seekers are not in the U.S. when they are turned away at the border, they did not “arrive in” the country. Therefore, he continued, the legal protections for asylum seekers have not kicked in.
Writing for the liberal dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that Border Patrol agents speak with all immigrants at legal entry points and speaking with an agent is effectively the first step in “arriving in” the U.S.
News
Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.
Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits, both filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, noting in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”
It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.
The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order seeking to establish a federal voter list, argued that the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.
Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.
Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.
The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.
The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.
The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.
In a separate lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, who have appealed.
Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.
-
South-Carolina13 seconds agoA 1776 midnight battle in Laurens County: The Battle of Fort Lindley
-
South Dakota3 minutes ago
SD Lottery Millionaire for Life winning numbers for June 25, 2026
-
Tennessee8 minutes ago
TN Lottery Cash 3 Morning, Cash 3 Midday winning numbers for June 25, 2026
-
Texas15 minutes ago
Texas school board to vote on required Bible readings in public education
-
Utah18 minutes agoLawsuit claims Utah prison wrongfully conducted mass strip search of more than 100 women
-
Vermont23 minutes ago
VT Lottery Gimme 5, Pick 3 results for June 25, 2026
-
Virginia30 minutes agoVirginia man uses art to heal after years in prison, mental health battle
-
Washington33 minutes agoAJ Dybantsa arrives in Washington, ready to work on turning Wizards around