How This Poll Was Conducted

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

• We spoke with 1,532 registered voters from June 28 to July 2, 2024.

• Our polls are conducted by telephone, using live interviewers, in both English and Spanish. About 93 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 more than 190,000 calls to more than 113,000 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 poll’s margin of sampling error among registered voters is plus or minus 2.8 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

The New York Times/Siena College poll of 1,532 registered voters nationwide, including 1,235 who completed the full survey, was conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones from June 28 to July 2, 2024. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for the likely electorate. Among those who completed the full survey, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 3.3 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.

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, 93 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

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)

• 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)

• 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

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 1.22 for registered voters and 1.33 for the likely electorate. The design effect for the sample of completed interviews is 1.28 for registered voters and 1.37 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.

Stay informed with free updates

Simply sign up to the US inflation myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.

Federal Reserve officials thought that US inflation was cooling but still needed “greater confidence” before they agreed to cut interest rates from their 23-year high, according to minutes of their most recent meeting.

“Participants suggested that a number of developments in the product and labour market supported their judgment that price pressures were diminishing,” said the minutes from the June meeting, published on Wednesday.

Some rate-setters also noted that retailers were now offering price cuts in the face of weakening consumer demand.

But members of the Federal Open Market Committee also thought they should hold rates at the current level of 5.25-5.5 per cent until “additional information had emerged to give them greater confidence” that inflation was moving “sustainably” to the Fed’s 2 per cent target, the minutes said.

The minutes come after months of concern that price pressures were still not easing as quickly as Fed officials hoped, making them reluctant to cut borrowing costs too quickly.

The Fed sharply increased rates two years ago in a bid to quell inflation that reached multi-decade highs in 2022. Inflation fell quickly last year, and the central bank’s preferred gauge dipped again to 2.6 per cent in May. But it still above its target.

However, the record of the meeting also revealed some policymakers’ concerns that unemployment could rise too quickly if rates remained too high for too long.

“Several participants specifically emphasised that with the labour market normalising, a further weakening of demand may now generate a larger unemployment response than in the recent past when lower demand for labour was felt relatively more through fewer job openings.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics will publish a closely watched report on the job market on Friday. Economists polled by Bloomberg predict that 190,000 jobs were added in June, which would be a sharp slowdown from the month before.

Officials indicated at the meting in June that they expect to cut borrowing costs just once this year, down from their previous forecast of three cuts.

Inflation and high borrowing costs have become a political problem for President Joe Biden, with polls showing voters remain unhappy with the cost of living in recent years and his handling of the economy.

Traders in the futures market are now pricing in a 70 per cent chance of a cut in September — the final policy decision ahead of the presidential election on November 5. Nearly two cuts are priced by year-end. The central bank next meets on July 31.

Rate-setters signalled in their statement after the last meeting that other factors including the effect of two years of high rates on consumer demand, easing of labour markets and boost to supplies would contribute to more disinflation.

Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett is the first congressional Democrat to call for President Biden to withdraw from the presidential election. Earlier on Wednesday, Doggett told NPR’s Leila Fadel that Biden “has not convinced the American people” that he’s fit for reelection.

Doggett fears that with Biden as the candidate, Democrats will not be able to stop “Donald Trump from becoming the new authoritarian strongman in our country.”

Despite Biden’s “transformational accomplishments,” Doggett sees a lack of “enthusiasm and excitement” that could cause Democrats to lose not only the presidency, but also the House and Senate in the upcoming elections.

While party leadership so far has voiced continued support for Biden, he says his dissent represents widespread concern.

The following is an edited and condensed version of the conversation with Rep. Lloyd Doggett.

Leila Fadel: So why do you want Biden to withdraw?

Rep. Lloyd Doggett: You have a criminal and his gang who are about to take over our government. We’ve got to do everything we possibly can to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the new authoritarian strongman in our country. […] President Biden has some significant accomplishments. I’ve supported him throughout, but he has not convinced the American people.

Fadel: Are you saying that you don’t think he can beat Donald Trump?

Doggett: I think that he is far behind and that we have to put our best possibility forward instead of putting forward the same person that so many people, some called the “double haters,” have rejected. We need to add some enthusiasm and excitement in our campaign. Yesterday, while I was the only person to call for him to step aside, in Washington state, in Maine, I had colleagues who said Donald Trump will win. There’s much of that thinking out there that’s difficult to overcome. And there is great consternation across the country, I believe, from the people I’ve heard from, that we could lose not only the presidency, but the House and the Senate.

Fadel: I want to get a sense of how representative your opinion is. I mean, the party leadership is rallying around the President right now? Are you in the minority here? 

Doggett: I think there are people that don’t agree with me. From the conversations that I had on the floor of Congress the morning after the election and some of the conversations that I’ve had since then, I think the concerns I’m voicing are widespread.

I’m a member who’s been in Congress for a while, as you noted, not starting my career. I’m not a vulnerable member in this election, so I’m able to step forward and speak out about what I think is so critical for our country in ways that perhaps some other people have not, but I certainly have not gotten any discouragement from within the leadership of the party.

Fadel: What do you say to Democrats who might say, now isn’t the time to withdraw support from Biden because it could help Donald Trump, his opponent, contrary to what you’re saying?

Doggett: You know, that’s the very concern that caused me to not speak out about this earlier. I wish this had been resolved earlier. President Biden said he would be a transitional figure. He’s had some transformational accomplishments, but he’s worked now for a year, and he’s not been able to close the gap, and he made that gap wider after this debate, raising real questions in the minds of so many Americans as to his capability to govern the country now and over the next four years. I just say don’t take that chance.

I don’t want to do anything to diminish his chances of success. If he is our nominee, he certainly will have my backing. It just will be a heavy lift for me and for many candidates who I believe across the country will begin to distance themselves from the president because they fear being dragged down by the problems that he’s having.

The audio version of this interview was edited by Ally Schweitzer. The digital version was edited by Majd Al-Waheidi and Dana Farrington.