Connect with us

News

Want to know November's election outcome? Washington's primary may be a crystal ball

Published

on

Want to know November's election outcome? Washington's primary may be a crystal ball

In this file photo, a person drops off a ballot at a drop box during the presidential primary election on Tuesday, March 12 in Seattle. Washington state is reliably Democratic in its voting, but its late summer top-two primary has predictive power for how the nation feels about the two main political parties.

Manuel Valdes/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Manuel Valdes/AP

The mantra “past performance is no guarantee of future results” applies to many things, including trying to predict election results ahead of time. But how many voters in a deep blue state showed up in this month’s primary – and how they voted – may provide insight into the political environment in November.

Election data analysts point to Washington state’s primary results as a useful barometer of which party is likely to win the national popular vote for the House of Representatives and to what degree.

Here’s how to do it: add up the total votes for Democrats and Republicans in Washington’s 10 House district primaries. Then, take the difference between them and subtract 12 to get a rough estimate of the predicted House margin in November.

Advertisement

An NPR analysis of the Washington primary using this framework estimates that Democrats could win the national popular vote by about 4 points, which is slightly more than the 2020 presidential election that saw them narrowly win the White House and control of both chambers of Congress.

In other words, it will likely be yet another close race.

This year, Democrats won about 57.3% of the Congressional primary vote to Republicans’ 41.3%, or a margin of 16%. Subtract 12 percentage points, and you get that estimate of a 4% popular vote victory for Democrats later this year.

Current presidential polling averages have Vice President Harris leading former President Donald Trump by about 3% heading into the Democratic National Convention, and the most recent NPR/PBS News/Marist poll also found Harris up by 3%, suggesting a similar national environment could be waiting in November.

In recent elections, the framework has also hinted at the direction of public sentiment ahead of the general elections, like the 2022 midterms. Democrats finished with a 10.4% margin in Washington’s primary election, a down year that suggested Republicans were favored by about 1.6%, closer to the final national popular vote advantage of about 2.8% for the GOP in the House.

Advertisement

In 2020, a 14% primary margin suggested a 2% popular vote victory for Democrats, which ended up being closer to 3%. 2018’s “blue wave” that saw Democrats win the House popular vote with a roughly 8.5% margin was foreshadowed by Washington’s primary that saw a 20.4 % Democratic margin across its Congressional seats.

Why Washington state?

J. Miles Coleman, Associate Editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at University of Virginia Center for Politics, says Washington’s predictive power is driven by a few unique factors.

“One, the primary is open to all voters, and two, it occurs relatively late in the primary season,” he said. “Down-ballot primaries in other states usually begin in March, so it almost has a feel of being a ‘dress rehearsal’ for the fall election.”

Unlike many other primaries, Washington’s election sees all candidates from all parties on the same ballot, with the top two vote-getters proceeding to the general election. There are often more candidates and more ideological options for voters to express their preferences under the umbrella of the two major parties.

“This, combined with the very high turnout we see in this election – not quite at the level of a general election, but far better than most primaries – makes it much more representative,” Lakshya Jain, CEO of the elections modeling website Split Ticket, said. “It’s also a state that’s roughly as white as the nation is and just a few points more educated, meaning that it’s at least somewhat representative of the overall electorate.”

Advertisement

Jain said the Washington primary indicates an election cycle that is definitely driven by Democratic enthusiasm, but not to the degree of “blue wave” election years like 2018.

“The fact that Democrats are substantially outperforming their 2022 numbers bodes very well for them, especially given that they almost kept the House that year,” he added. “I will say that basically everything that’s been going on of late seems good for them — polling has surged in their direction, and the primary results and specials broadly all seem good for them.”

That said, the Washington primary shorthand should not be used as absolute gospel to be applied equally because there are 435 House races, 33 Senate races and 50 state-level presidential elections that all have their own quirks and local electorates that change how useful the estimate may be.

There are only a small handful of competitive House, Senate and presidential battlegrounds, so increased Democratic turnout and enthusiasm in noncompetitive races could lead to a higher national popular vote victory without winning those races, for example.

Coleman added that a third presidential election cycle that has been dominated by Trump means low-propensity voters that support him and no other candidate are another group to watch for as well.

Advertisement

“While there are some promising signs for Democrats, the Washington primary being one of them, to me, one X-factor lingering over the election is the question of how many of those voters Trump will bring out.”

News

UK urged to ban leaded aviation fuel for small planes

Published

on

UK urged to ban leaded aviation fuel for small planes

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Sir Keir Starmer’s government has been urged to follow the US and EU in banning aviation fuel containing lead that is used by small planes across the UK.

MPs and researchers told the Financial Times that ministers should act to phase out production and use of tetraethyl lead (TEL), a compound in aviation gasoline that powers thousands of light, piston-engine aircraft.

Leaded petrol was banned in 1999 because of its effect on human health by the then Labour government, but TEL continues to be made in Britain.

Advertisement

Lead is a toxic metal that impairs the mental development of children and has a devastating impact on almost every organ in the human body. Any level of exposure is capable of having a harmful effect, according to the World Health Organization.

The UK is the only country in the world where TEL is still made. Most advanced economies had banned production of the compound by the early 2000s.

The EU has pledged to ban imports of TEL as of May 1 2025, while in the US the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions initiative, a public-private partnership between the government, the oil industry and the aviation sector, has a target of 2030 for the complete phaseout of leaded Avgas.

A study by researchers at the University of Kent in 2022 found most piston engine aircraft in the UK used leaded aviation fuel and that there were “370,632 residences within 4km of a general aviation airport at risk from exposure to lead emissions”.

Leaded aviation fuel (AVGAS100LL) contains 0.56 grammes of tetraethyl lead per litre, which is expelled from the engine during an aircraft’s flight.

Advertisement

Ashley Mills, a public health data scientist who led the University of Kent study, said planes using this fuel distributed the toxic metal into the air and soil around airports and called for the UK to phase out leaded Avgas by 2030.

“The lack of adoption [of lead-free fuel] is due to unavailability and pilot perceptions around suitability,” Mills said, citing GAMI’s G100UL, a high-octane lead-free fuel certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, the US aviation regulator. “The main barrier here is political will.”

Lee Crawfurd, research fellow at the Centre for Global Development, a think-tank in Washington DC, said it was “shocking . . . that it’s OK for people to pump out neurotoxins into the air above children’s homes and schools for the sake of a hobby”.

“Banning leaded aviation fuel would be really easy. There can’t be very many better value things we could do for public health, education, and productivity.”

A recommendation to ban the use of TEL in aviation fuels would be made by the UK Health and Safety Executive, the watchdog for work-related safety, under its Reach (registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals) regulation. 

Advertisement

Reach reassessed aviation fluids this year and decided not to recommend curbing the use of TEL. HSE officials said ultimately it was for a minister to make a decision on regulatory action.

They added that strict airworthiness requirements for these aircraft meant alternative fuels would need to undergo extensive testing in order to demonstrate they would be suitable and not lead to catastrophic engine failures.

Siân Berry, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion and a long-term clean air campaigner, said the continued use of lead based fuels was “really worrying as the impact . . . will be concentrated in certain areas”.

“We need to look at all aspects of cleaning up hazards in our air . . . [and] we need to make sure we are not behind the rest of the world in phasing this out,” she added.

Wera Hobhouse, Liberal Democrat MP and the party’s transport spokesperson, said: “Ministers should be looking to legislate to bring an end to the use of leaded fuel on small aircraft. Both the EU and America have already taken these steps and the UK should follow that to minimise any risk it could have to the health of our nation.”

Advertisement

Mills at Kent university said that, from April 2025, the government “should differentiate fuel duty on leaded and unleaded Avgas to incentivise unleaded-capable pilots to switch”. 

Duty on Avgas — which has stood at 38p per litre since January 2021 — should rise every year until 2030, when it should be illegal to sell the leaded fuel in the UK, he added. The Treasury was contacted for comment.

Johann Beckford, senior policy adviser at the Green Alliance, a think-tank, said it was “important to remain in line with the EU and US in terms of the regulations we follow”.

“The time has come for a ban on lead in aviation fuel to support children’s health,” he added. “In the longer term, government needs to support the development of zero emission flight alternatives to cut emissions.”

The Department for Transport said it was “committed to making flying cleaner” and that there were “not enough widely available alternatives to leaded fuels which can be used by all general aviation aircraft”. 

Advertisement

“We are working closely with the industry and the UK Health and Safety Executive to move towards lead-free alternatives as quickly as possible,” it added.

Continue Reading

News

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

Published

on

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

How This Poll Was Conducted

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

• Interviewers spoke with 677 registered voters in Arizona from Aug. 8 to 15; 661 registered voters in Georgia and 655 registered voters in North Carolina from Aug. 9 to 14; and 677 registered voters in Nevada from Aug. 12 to 15.

• Times/Siena polls are conducted by telephone, using live interviewers, in both English and Spanish. More than 95 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 these polls, interviewers placed more than 276,000 calls to nearly 183,000 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 2.1 percentage points across the four states, plus or minus 4.1 percentage points in Arizona and Georgia, and plus or minus 4.2 percentage points in Nevada and North Carolina. 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 were conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones in Arizona from Aug. 8 to 15, 2024; in Georgia and North Carolina from Aug. 9 to 14, 2024; and in Nevada from Aug. 12 to 15, 2024. In all, 2,670 registered voters were interviewed. When all states are joined together, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points for all registered voters and plus or minus 2.2 percentage points for the likely electorate.

The margin of sampling error among registered voters for each state poll is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points in Arizona and Georgia, and plus or minus 4.2 percentage points in Nevada and North Carolina. Among the likely electorate, it is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points in Arizona, Georgia and Nevada, and plus or minus 4.2 points in North Carolina.

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, 96 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 12 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)

• History of voting in the 2020 presidential primary, in North Carolina (L2)

Advertisement

• Major party registration or participation in party primary, in Arizona (NYT classifications based on L2 data)

• Census tract educational attainment, in Arizona and Nevada

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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 1.2 for registered voters and 1.35 for the likely electorate in Arizona, 1.18 for registered voters and 1.35 for the likely electorate in Georgia,1.22 for registered voters and 1.37 for the likely electorate in Nevada, and 1.18 for registered voters and 1.19 for likely voters in North Carolina.

For the sample of completed interviews, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.6 points for registered voters and plus or minus 4.8 points for the likely electorate in Arizona, plus or minus 4.7 points for registered voters and plus or minus 5.1 points for the likely electorate in Georgia, plus or minus 4.6 points for registered voters and plus or minus 4.8 points for the likely electorate in Nevada, plus or minus 4.7 points for registered voters and plus or minus 4.7 points for the likely electorate in North Carolina.

The design effect for the sample of completed interviews is 1.24 for registered voters and 1.35 for the likely electorate in Arizona, 1.22 for registered voters and 1.45 for the likely electorate in Georgia, 1.24 for registered voters and 1.35 for the likely electorate in Nevada, and 1.28 for registered voters and 1.28 for the likely electorate in North Carolina.

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
Continue Reading

News

Israeli air strike kills 10 in Lebanon

Published

on

Israeli air strike kills 10 in Lebanon

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

An Israeli air strike in Lebanon killed 10 people on Saturday, according to local authorities, just hours after the latest round of talks to prevent the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza spiralling into a regional war wrapped up.

Israel’s military said the strike targeted a weapons storage facility near Nabatieh belonging to Hizbollah. The Iran-backed militant group and Israel have been exchanging fire since the start of the war in Gaza.

Lebanon’s ministry of health said that in addition to the fatalities, all of whom had Syrian nationality, the strike in the south of the country had injured at least five people. Hizbollah did not immediately comment.

Advertisement

The air strike was launched as US secretary of state Antony Blinken was due to land in Israel on Saturday to try to advance a deal to end the 10-month-old war between Israel and Hamas and secure the release of the roughly 115 hostages still held by the militant group in Gaza.

The ceasefire talks are seen by US and Arab officials as the best hope of preventing the war between Israel and Hamas, which was triggered by Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, from escalating into a regional conflagration.

Fears of a broader war have intensified since back-to-back assassinations of senior Hizbollah and Hamas figures last month in Beirut and Tehran. Hizbollah and Iran have pledged to retaliate against Israel.

On Friday, after two days of talks in Doha, the US, Qatar and Egypt put forward a proposal aiming to bridge the gaps between Israel and Hamas, which remain at odds on the terms of a ceasefire deal, despite multiple rounds of negotiations.

A further meeting is due to be held in Cairo before the end of next week “with the aim to conclude the deal under the terms put forward today”, the US, Qatar and Egypt, who have been mediating the talks, said in a joint statement.

Advertisement

“There is no further time to waste, nor excuses from any party for further delay,” they added. “It is time to release the hostages and detainees, begin the ceasefire and implement this agreement.”

The mediators said they had presented Israel and Hamas with a “bridging proposal that is consistent with the principles laid out” in a three-stage plan to end the fighting set out by US President Joe Biden in May. 

The first stage of that plan envisaged a six-week truce, during which Hamas would free a first group of hostages in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.

A second phase would involve the release of all hostages and what mediators hope would be an extended ceasefire, while the third phase would initiate the reconstruction of Gaza.

Biden said on Friday that the talks in Doha had made good progress and that while the sides were “not there yet”, an agreement could be “close”.

Advertisement

Mediators have also expressed optimism about previous rounds of negotiations, but the talks have repeatedly foundered on disagreements between Israel and Hamas on crucial aspects of any deal.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending