News
Cross-Tabs: February 2024 Times/Siena Poll of the Likely Electorate
Methodology
The New York Times/Siena College poll of 980 registered voters nationwide, including 823 who completed the full survey, was conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones from Feb. 25 to 28, 2024. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 3.8 percentage points for the likely electorate. Among those who completed the full survey, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 4.2 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 (as a random effect), 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. In 12 states, the models of response were inadvertently fit using data that did not suppose that “dropoff” respondents – those who completed the questions used for weighting, but subsequently dropped out of the interview before answering the last question – would be counted as completed interviews for this survey. This was corrected with a post-hoc selection weight, described below in the weighting section.
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 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, 94 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, 3 percent of interviews among self-reported Hispanics were conducted in Spanish, including 4 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 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, interacted by whether a respondent was from one of twelve states in which the sample was inadvertently drawn using response models that had been fit supposing that respondents who dropped off would not be counted as completed interviews.
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)
• 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)
• National region (NYT classifications by state) by whether a state was among the 12 states drawn inadvertently supposing that only completed interviews would be classified as complete (See unequal selection weight for additional details).
• 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)
• Census tract educational attainment (NYT classifications based on American Community Survey data)
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 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 1.28 for registered voters and 1.45 for the likely electorate. The design effect for the sample of completed interviews is 1.35 for registered voters and 1.53 for the likely electorate.
Historically, The Times/Siena Poll’s error at the 95th percentile has been plus or minus 5.1 percentage points. Real-world error includes sources of error beyond sampling error, such as nonresponse bias and coverage error.
Lionel Messi #10 of Argentina celebrates scoring his team’s second goal during their World Cup match against Egypt in Atlanta on Tuesday.
Elsa/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Elsa/Getty Images
They looked beaten. And out. Argentina, the defending World Cup champion and No. 1-ranked team, was down 2-0 late against Egypt.
Then, in a span of 13 remarkable minutes, Argentina scored not once, not twice, but three times, capping a comeback for the ages and leaving Egypt stunned and shellshocked.
For much of the game in Atlanta, Egypt was in control, hobbling Argentina early. The Egyptian attack began almost immediately with a stunning header goal delivered by Yasser Ibrahim in the 15th minute. After that, Egypt’s defense closed ranks, making it practically impossible for Argentina to equalize.
It was downhill from there for the Argentines: team captain Lionel Messi failed to convert a penalty kick, and in the 67th minute, Egypt got a second goal from Mostafa Ziko (after an earlier Egyptian goal had been disallowed after a video review). It looked like Argentina was finished. On the brink of elimination.
But no one told the Argentine players that.
In the 79th minute, Lionel Messi began doing his thing. He fired a cross near the Egyptian goal, and Cristian Romero headed it in. Messi was not done. Four minutes later, he powered a shot past the Egyptian keeper. It was his eighth goal of this tournament, the most of any player. The score was 2-2.
Then, in stoppage time, yet another Argentina header and another goal, this time from Enzo Fernandez.
“This is the World Cup for you,” said Messi after the game. “It wasn’t easy to come back from two goals down. But as I always say, this group never gives up. We always try to fight until the end.”
French referee François Letexier speaks with Egypt forward Mohamed Salah during the World Cup Round of 16 match between Argentina and Egypt in Atlanta.
Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images
Afterward, Egypt coach Hossam Hassan complained about the French referee and the officiating. “I am not convinced. I am not convinced with this outcome. I’m not convinced with the way things unfolded during this match,” said Hassan in a post-match news conference. “We have been treated unfairly today. We have suffered injustice.”
“We would have deserved to earn this win, but we are leaving with honor, with pride, regardless of this defeat,” said Hossan.
African soccer teams have been the stars of this World Cup. Morocco has yet to lose a game. Cape Verde qualified for the first time in its history and stymied Spain, Uruguay and Saudi Arabia. Argentina barely beat them in a nail-biter of a match.
For Egypt, getting this far in the tournament is historic in itself: it’s the first time the team has made it this far. For Argentina, it was a terrifying yet relieving victory: several players, including Messi himself, cried after the game.
Next, they move to the quarterfinals and will play the winner of today’s Switzerland-Colombia match.
Top Senate Democrats are pushing for answers on whether a provision in a controversial settlement agreement between President Trump and his own administration applies to companies co-founded by or affiliated with the Trump family.
As part of a deal struck in May by the Justice Department to resolve a lawsuit brought by Mr. Trump, the Internal Revenue Service is permanently barred from pursuing claims against Mr. Trump, his oldest sons Don Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization based on prior tax returns.
In a one-page document signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and dated May 19, the Justice Department said the defendants in the president’s lawsuit — the IRS and the Treasury Department — are “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from “prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims” arising from tax returns filed before the settlement took effect. Blanche also wrote that the settlement applies to “parties including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries.”
Now, Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, and Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee Ron Wyden of Oregon are pushing 11 businesses and organizations with ties to the Trump family to get answers for the “significant questions” the settlement raises relating to the tax audit provision, and whether the companies are included in the deal.
“Under the guise of a so-called legal settlement, the Trump administration has attempted to decree that the President, his family, and their entire business empire — potentially including entities with even the vaguest ‘affiliation’ to the family — are to face zero consequences if they have committed a range of financial crimes or misdeeds — regardless of the severity of the violation,” the senators wrote in letters transmitted to the companies Monday night.
The letters were sent to mining company Kaz Resources, defense firm Powerus, cryptocurrency companies World Liberty Financial and American Bitcoin, robotics startup Foundation Future Industries, investment firm 1789 Capital, private aviation company Tag Air, and prediction markets Polymarket and Kalshi.
All of the companies either were founded by Mr. Trump and his two adult sons, or list members of the Trump family as advisers, board members, or partial owners. Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket’s advisory board and 1789 Capital, where he’s a partner, has invested in Polymarket. Days before Mr. Trump took office for his second term, Kalshi also announced Trump Jr. would be a strategic adviser.
The Democrats, who are in the minority, lack subpoena power, so Mr. Trump, his children and his companies can’t be forced to answer the questions posed by the senators.
According to recent financial disclosures, the president earned more than a billion dollars from cryptocurrency ventures alone last year, including from his meme coin business and World Liberty Financial, his family’s cryptocurrency firm.
Separately, the senators also asked the Trump Organization in a separate letter if it believes it has “immunity from all audits, civil penalties or federal prosecution” for any crimes that could have occurred before the settlement.
Trump Media and Technology Group, which is majority owned by a trust that lists Mr. Trump as the sole beneficiary and operates the Truth Social platform he uses daily, also received a letter from the Democratic senators.
“The public deserves transparency about the scope of this get-out-of-jail free card for Trump-aligned businesses, and about whether you intend to rely on this settlement as a free pass for any possible violations of the law,” the senators continued in their letter, which also seeks any communications that executives at the companies have had with the Justice Department and White House leading up to or after the settlement was signed.
The settlement was announced months after Mr. Trump and two of his sons and the Trump Organization accused the IRS and Treasury Department of unlawfully allowing a government contractor to leak tax returns to media outlets in 2020.
In a statement, a Justice Department spokesperson said “the IRS routinely provides releases as part of resolving taxpayer reviews and audits. This settlement follows that same standard practice.”
The spokesperson did not provide specific information about which companies are covered by the audit provision, or whether the Trump Organization and Trump family are the only entities covered by that addendum.
Charles De Ketelaere #17 of Belgium celebrates after scoring his team’s second goal during the World Cup Round of 16 match against the United States on Monday in Seattle.
Alex Grimm/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Grimm/Getty Images
SEATTLE — This time was supposed to be different.
The U.S. men’s national team came into this FIFA World Cup with a lineup full of players with key roles in Europe’s top leagues. They had the name-brand coach — Mauricio Pochettino, of Tottenham, PSG and Chelsea fame. And they had homefield advantage, with every game on U.S. soil for the first time in three decades.
For weeks, the hype seemed like it might be real: The team’s three wins over Paraguay, Australia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were the most ever by a U.S. men’s squad in a World Cup. A new generation of American fans filled stadiums by the tens of thousands and tuned in on TV by the tens of millions.
But in the end, the Americans’ exit was the same as it ever was: Eliminated yet again in the Round of 16 at the hands of a European team — this time, Belgium, by a score of 4-1.
From the moment they stepped onto the Seattle field, the U.S. was outclassed by their opponent, No. 9-ranked Belgium. Countless turnovers and defensive lapses were seized on by the Belgians, who needed only nine minutes to take a 1-0 lead.
Then, once the Americans equalized on a free kick by midfielder Malik Tillman, Belgium scored yet again in barely a minute of play. Belgian forward Charles De Ketelaere scored both his team’s first-half goals.
After halftime, came an embarrassing nail in the coffin that silenced the Seattle sellout crowd for good — a 57th minute roll-in by Hans Vanaken after a slip-up by goalkeeper Matt Freese outside of the penalty area left the goal unguarded. Belgian forward Romelu Lukaku added a stoppage-time goal to seal the final score at 4-1.
Malik Tillman #17 of the United States celebrates scoring his team’s only goal during their World Cup match against Belgium. In what was one of the few bright spots of the game, the U.S. pulled even with Belgium at 1-1. The tie lasted less than two minutes before Belgium scored again.
Luke Hales/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Luke Hales/Getty Images
“It stinks,” said U.S. midfielder Tyler Adams. “Tonight was not a good performance overall. It’s not what we look to achieve. There [were] a lot of things that we could have done better.”
The U.S. had entered Monday’s game under a cloud of controversy around their striker Folarin Balogun, who was shown a red card in last week’s Round of 32 match against Bosnia-Herzegovina. An automatic one-game suspension was set to sideline Balogun, the Americans’ leading scorer at the World Cup, for Monday’s game.
Then, the day before the game, a FIFA disciplinary panel took the highly unusual step of delaying Balogun’s suspension by a year to allow him to participate. Then, news broke that President Trump had personally called FIFA president Gianni Infantino to encourage him to review the red card.
The Royal Belgian Football Association said it would protest Balogun’s inclusion in the lineup. But even at full strength, the U.S. were never real contenders in Monday’s game.
U.S. defender and team captain Tim Ream said the controversy swirling around the team had no impact. “We were fully focused on us as a group and as a team and fully focused on the game and not really worrying about what was being said or debated in the outside world.”
Belgium will advance to the quarterfinals for the third time in the past four World Cups, where it will face Spain on Friday in Los Angeles.
Mauricio Pochettino, Head Coach of the United States, walks down the touchline during the Round of 16 World Cup match between the USA and Belgium in Seattle on Monday.
Carl Recine/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Carl Recine/Getty Images
-
Missouri5 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 winning numbers for July 7, 2026
-
Montana12 minutes ago
Montana Lottery Mega Millions, Big Sky Bonus results for July 7, 2026
-
Nebraska15 minutes agoNebraska Rep. Mike Flood faces frustrated constituents at second town hall of year
-
Nevada20 minutes agoThe Best Summer County Fairs In Nevada
-
New Hampshire27 minutes agoDozens Arrested During Fourth Of July Holiday Weekend Enforcement: New Hampshire State Police Roundup
-
New Jersey30 minutes agoWater rescue in the ocean off Wildwood, New Jersey caught on video
-
New Mexico35 minutes agoWhat will it take to get the Rio Grande flowing again?
-
North Carolina42 minutes agoNorth Carolina man accused of shooting and killing another tourist inside of a Broward Airbnb, police say
