Connect with us

News

Cross-Tabs: July 2024 Times/Siena Poll of the Likely Electorate in Virginia

Published

on

Cross-Tabs: July 2024 Times/Siena Poll of the Likely Electorate in Virginia

How These Polls Were Conducted

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

• We spoke with 872 registered voters in Pennsylvania from July 9 to 11 and 661 registered voters in Virginia from July 9 to 12, 2024.

• Our polls are conducted by telephone, using live interviewers, in both English and Spanish. About 91 percent of respondents were contacted on a cellphone for this poll.

• Voters are selected 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, we placed more than 160,000 calls to nearly 100,000 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 3.7 percentage points in Pennsylvania and plus or minus 4.2 percentage points in Virginia. 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 872 registered voters in Pennsylvania, including 793 who completed the full survey, was conducted from July 9 to 11, 2024. The Times/Siena poll of 661 registered voters in Virginia, including 615 who completed the full survey, was conducted from July 9 to 12, 2024. The margin of sampling error in Pennsylvania is plus or minus 3.7 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 3.8 percentage points for the likely electorate. In Virginia, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.2 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 4.4 percentage points for likely voters.

Among those who completed the full survey, the margin of sampling error in Pennsylvania is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus four percentage points for the likely electorate; in Virginia, it is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 4.6 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.

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, 91 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, 10 percent of interviews among self-reported Hispanics were conducted in Spanish, including 14 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)

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)

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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 1.23 for registered voters and 1.29 for the likely electorate in Pennsylvania, and 1.20 for registered voters and 1.31 for the likely electorate in Virginia. The design effect for the sample of completed interviews is 1.24 for registered voters and 1.31 for the likely electorate in Pennsylvania, and 1.22 for registered voters and 1.34 for the likely electorate in Virginia.

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

News

Video: Who Is Trying to Replace Planned Parenthood?

Published

on

Video: Who Is Trying to Replace Planned Parenthood?

new video loaded: Who Is Trying to Replace Planned Parenthood?

As efforts to defund Planned Parenthood lead to the closure of some of its locations, Christian-based clinics that try to dissuade abortions are aiming to fill the gap in women‘s health care. Our reporter Caroline Kitchener describes how this change is playing out in Ames, Iowa.

By Caroline Kitchener, Melanie Bencosme, Karen Hanley, June Kim and Pierre Kattar

December 22, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Weather tracker: Further flood watches issued across California

Published

on

Weather tracker: Further flood watches issued across California

After prolonged heavy rainfall and devastating flooding across the Pacific north-west in the past few weeks, further flood watches have been issued across California through this week.

With 50-75mm (2-3in) of rainfall already reported across northern California this weekend, a series of atmospheric rivers will continue to bring periods of heavy rain and mountain snow across the northern and central parts of the state, with flood watches extending until Friday.

Cumulative rainfall totals are expected to widely exceed 50mm (2in) across a vast swathe of California by Boxing Day, but with totals around 200-300mm (8-12in) possible for the north-western corner of California and western-facing slopes of the northern Sierra Nevada mountains.

Los Angeles could receive 100-150mm (4-6in) of rainfall between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, which could make it one of the wettest Christmases on record for the city. River and urban flooding are likely – particularly where there is run-off from high ground – with additional risks of mudslides and rockslides in mountain and foothill areas.

Winter storm warnings are also in effect for Yosemite national park, with the potential for 1.8-2.4 metres (6-8ft) of accumulating snow by Boxing Day. Heavy snow alongside strong winds will make travel very difficult over the festive period.

Advertisement
Golden Gate Bridge is covered with dense fog near Fort Point as rainy weather and an atmospheric river hit the San Francisco Bay Area on Saturday. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

Heavy rain, lightning and strong winds are forecast across large parts of Zimbabwe leading up to Christmas. A level 2 weather warning has been issued by the Meteorological Services Department from Sunday 21 December to Wednesday 24 December. Some areas are expected to see more than 50mm of rainfall within a 24-hour period. The rain will be accompanied by hail, frequent lightning, and strong winds. These conditions have been attributed to the interaction between warm, moist air with low-pressure systems over the western and northern parts of the country.

Australia will see some large variations in temperatures over the festive period. Sydney, which is experiencing temperatures above 40C, is expected to tumble down to about 22C by Christmas Day, about 5C below average for this time of year. Perth is going to see temperatures gradually creep up, reaching a peak of 40C around Christmas Day. This is about 10C above average for this time of year.

Continue Reading

News

Lawmakers threaten Attorney General Bondi with contempt over incomplete Epstein files

Published

on

Lawmakers threaten Attorney General Bondi with contempt over incomplete Epstein files

Attorney General Pam Bondi, accompanied by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (L) and FBI Director Kash Patel (R), speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department on Nov. 19. Some lawmakers said the department’s release of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein had too many redactions as well as missing information.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Two lawmakers are threatening a seldom-used congressional sanction against the Department of Justice over what they say is a failure to release all of its files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by a deadline set in law.

Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie spearheaded the effort to force the Epstein files’ release by co-sponsoring the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but both have said the release had too many redactions as well as missing information.

“I think the most expeditious way to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. “Basically Ro Khanna and I are talking about and drafting that right now.”

Advertisement

Inherent contempt refers to Congress’ authority to fine or arrest and then bring to trial officers who are obstructing legislative functions. It was last successfully used in the 1930s, according to the American Bar Association.

Khanna, a California Democrat, noted that the House would not need the Senate’s approval to take such action, which he said would result in a fine for Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“I believe we’re going to get bipartisan support in holding her accountable,” he told Face the Nation.

Justice Department defends partial release

The Justice Department on Sunday defended its initial, partial release of documents, some of which were heavily redacted.

“The material that we released on Friday, or the material that we’re going to release over the next a couple of weeks, is exactly what the statute requires us to release,” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on NBC’s Meet the Press, referring to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Advertisement

Blanche said the administration has hundreds of lawyers going through the remaining documents to ensure that victims’ information is protected. Still, lawmakers from both parties remain unsatisfied.

“Any evidence or any kind of indication that there’s not a full reveal on this, this will just plague them for months and months more,” said Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on ABC’s This Week. “My suggestion would be — give up all the information, release it.”

Blanche told NBC he was not taking the threats of contempt seriously.

“Not even a little bit. Bring it on,” he said, adding that lawmakers who have spoken negatively about Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel “have no idea what they’re talking about.”

Back and forth over Trump photo

The trove of documents released Friday contained little new information about Epstein, prompting accusations that the department wasn’t complying with the law. There was a photograph included in Friday’s release that showed a desk full of photos, including at least one of President Trump. It was among more than a dozen photographs no longer available in the Justice Department’s “Epstein Library” by Saturday, NPR found.

Advertisement

On Sunday, the Justice Department re-uploaded the photo of the desk, and provided an explanation on X.

“The Southern District of New York flagged an image of President Trump for potential further action to protect victims,” the post read. “Out of an abundance of caution, the Department of Justice temporarily removed the image for further review. After the review, it was determined there is no evidence that any Epstein victims are depicted in the photograph, and it has been reposted without any alteration or redaction.”

The Justice Department did not offer an explanation for the other photos whose access had been removed.

Blanche told NBC the Justice Department was not redacting information around Trump or any other individual involved with Epstein. He said the Justice Department had removed photos from the public files “because a judge in New York has ordered us to listen to any victim or victim rights group, if they have any concerns about the material that we’re putting up.

“And so when we hear concerns, whether it’s photographs of women that we do not believe are victims, or we didn’t have information to show that they were victims, but we learned that there are concerns, of course, we’re taking that photograph down and we’re going to address it,” he said.

Advertisement

Earlier Sunday, the Justice Department also posted to X a new version of the 119-page transcript of grand jury proceedings in the case of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. The original version had been entirely redacted.

“Here is the document now with minimal redactions. Documents and photos will continue to be reviewed consistent with the law and with an abundance of caution for victims and their families,” the Justice Department wrote in its post.

Continue Reading

Trending