Subterms
Opinion | The Editorial Board You already know Donald Trump. He is unfit to lead. Watch him. Listen to those who know him best. He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy. He helped overturn Roe, with terrible consequences. Mr. Trump’s corruption and lawlessness go beyond elections: It’s his whole ethos. […] More
Las últimas encuestas del Times/Inquirer/Siena sitúan a Donald Trump con seis puntos de ventaja en Arizona y a Kamala Harris con cuatro puntos en Pensilvania.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Dos de los estados más disputados del país —Pennsylvania y Arizona— ilustran las dificultades a las que se enfrentan ambas campañas para obtener una clara ventaja en la recta final de la contienda para 2024, en la que Kamala Harris mantiene una estrecha ventaja en Pensilvania, pero Donald Trump sigue manteniendo una ventaja en Arizona, según un nuevo par de encuestas del New York Times/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College.Las encuestas, realizadas en dos estados separados por más de 3000 kilómetros, muestran el reto al que se enfrentan ambos partidos al intentar cerrar sus campañas ante un conjunto diverso de votantes que, en ocasiones, tienen prioridades contrapuestas.Tanto en Arizona como en Pensilvania, Harris ha consolidado el apoyo entre los demócratas desde que sustituyó al presidente Biden como candidata del partido. Pero la fuerza de Trump sigue siendo la economía, el tema principal responsable de su potencia política en Arizona y otros estados disputados este año.En Pensilvania, la ventaja de Harris en las encuestas ha sido constante, aunque el estado sigue siendo reñido. Su ventaja, 50 por ciento a 47 por ciento, entra dentro del margen de error. Pero esta es la tercera encuesta Times/Siena en dos meses que muestra el apoyo a Harris de al menos la mitad del estado. (Su ventaja en la encuesta fue de cuatro puntos porcentuales si se calculan sin redondear las cifras).Lo que impulsa a Harris en el estado es su ventaja de casi 20 puntos porcentuales en lo que se refiere al aborto, su mejor tema en los estados disputados y la segunda preocupación más importante para los votantes de Pensilvania.How the polls compare More
How These Polls Were Conducted
Here are the key things to know about this set of polls from The New York Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer and Siena College:
• Interviewers spoke with 808 voters in Arizona from Oct. 7 to 10, 656 voters in Montana from Oct. Oct. 5 to 8, and 857 voters in Pennsylvania from Oct. 7 to 10.
• Times/Siena polls are conducted by telephone, using live interviewers, in both English and Spanish. Overall, more than 95 percent of respondents were contacted on a cellphone for these polls.
• 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 these polls, interviewers placed about 235,000 calls to nearly 90,000 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 likely voters is about plus or minus four 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 the difference between two values is computed — 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 the Times/Siena Poll is conducted, you can see answers to frequently asked questions and submit your own questions here.
Full Methodology
The New York Times/Siena College polls of 656 voters in Montana and 808 voters in Arizona and the New York Times/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College poll of 857 voters in Pennsylvania were conducted in English and Spanish on cellular and landline telephones. The Arizona ran from Oct. 7 to 10, the Pennsylvania poll ran from Oct. 7 to 10, 2024, and the Montana poll ran from Oct. 5 to 8.
For each poll, the margin of sampling error among the likely electorate is plus or minus 4.3 percentage points in Montana, plus or minus 3.9 percentage points in Arizona and plus or minus 3.8 percentage points in Pennsylvania.
The Times/Siena polls of Pennsylvania in 2024 were conducted in partnership with the Philadelphia Inquirer and were funded in part by a grant from the Lenfest Institute for Journalism. The poll was designed and conducted independently from the institute.
Sample
The survey is a response-rate-adjusted stratified sample of registered voters taken from the voter file maintained by L2, a nonpartisan voter-file vendor, and supplemented with additional voter-file-matched cellular telephone numbers from Marketing Systems Group. 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.
To adjust for noncoverage bias, 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 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, or with differing numbers from L2 and Marketing Systems Group, the number with the highest modeled response rate was selected.
Fielding
The sample was stratified according to political party, race and region. Marketing Systems Group screened the sample to ensure that the cellular telephone numbers were active, and the Siena College Research Institute fielded the poll, with additional fieldwork by ReconMR, the Public Opinion Research Laboratory at the University of North Florida, the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College, the Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research at Winthrop University in South Carolina and the Survey Center at University of New Hampshire. Interviewers asked for the person named on the voter file and ended the interview if the intended respondent was not available. Overall, more than 95 percent of respondents were reached on a cellular telephone.
In Arizona and Pennsylvania, the questions were 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, 6 percent of interviews (9 percent of the weighted sample) among self-reported Hispanics were conducted in Spanish, including 2 percent of the interviews (3 percent of the weighted sample) among self-reported Hispanics in Arizona and 26 percent of the interviews (34 percent of the weighted sample) among self-reported Hispanics in Pennsylvania.
An interview was determined to be complete for the purposes of inclusion in the questions about whom the respondent would vote for if the respondent did not drop out of the survey after being asked the two self-reported variables used in weighting — age and education — and answered at least one of the questions about age, education or presidential-election candidate preference.
Weighting (registered voters)
The survey was weighted by The Times using the survey package in R in multiple steps.
First, the sample was adjusted for unequal probability of selection by stratum.
Second, each poll was weighted to match voter file-based parameters for the characteristics of registered voters.
The following targets were used:
• Party registration (L2 data) by whether the respondent has requested an absentee ballot for the 2024 general election (L2 data), in Pennsylvania
• Party registration (L2 data) by race (L2 model), in Arizona
• Six categories of partisanship (Classification based on an NYT model of vote choice in prior Times/Siena polls), in Montana
• Partisanship (L2 model based on commercial data and partisan political contributions), in Montana
• Race or ethnicity (L2 model)
• Age (self-reported age, or voter-file age if the respondent refused) by gender (L2 data)
• 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/nonwhite race by college or noncollege educational attainment (L2 model of race weighted to match NYT-based targets for self-reported education in Pennsylvania; L2 model of race weighted to match NYT-based targets derived from census data in Arizona)
• Marital status (L2 model)
• Homeownership (L2 model)
• Turnout history (NYT classifications based on L2 data)
• Method of voting in the 2020 elections (NYT classifications based on L2 data), in Montana and Arizona
• State region (NYT classifications)
• Census block group density (A.C.S. 5-Year Census Block Group data), in Montana
• History of voting in the 2020 presidential primary (L2 data), in Pennsylvania
• Census tract educational attainment, in Arizona
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 voters leaning a certain way) 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 the registrant’s ex ante modeled turnout score, and one-fifth was based on 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 1.24 for the likely electorate in Montana, 1.29 for the likely electorate in Pennsylvania and 1.30 for the likely electorate in Arizona.
Among registered voters, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.3 points in Montana, including a design effect of 1.26; plus or minus 3.8 points in Arizona, including a design effect of 1.20; and plus or minus 3.7 points in Pennsylvania, including a design effect of 1.23.
For the sample of completed interviews, among the likely electorate, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 points in Montana, including a design effect of 1.29; plus or minus 4 points in Pennsylvania, including a design effect of 1.35; and plus or minus 4.1 points in Arizona, including a design effect of 1.30.
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. More
For most teenagers, a presidential election year offers a dilemma. Elections have consequences, as the saying goes, and this is especially true for young people, who are at the center of any number of issues dividing the U.S. electorate. Yet most teens can’t vote.All spring and summer, the Headway team has been talking with high school students about this year’s election. Headway is an initiative at The New York Times that covers the world’s challenges through the lens of progress. Since the march of progress will have its longest effects on the youngest of us, that lens has made Headway especially interested in the experiences of the world’s youth.We have been especially curious about youth voter turnout this year, given how youth engagement in presidential elections has changed over the past few cycles. The 2020 election was particularly striking. The spread of the coronavirus meant that going to the voting booth was particularly fraught. The two contenders for the presidency were the oldest in American history. The 2016 election had notably low youth participation. On the eve of the 2020 election, The Times posed the question, “Why don’t young people vote, and what can be done about it?”But then young people defied expectations. According to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement at Tufts University, Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 voted at higher rates in 2020 than they had in any elections except 1992 and 1972 (which was right after the voting age was lowered to 18). Their votes last election far outstripped the margin of victory in swing states, making them critical to the outcome.In collaboration with Chalkbeat, a nonprofit news organization that covers education in several American communities, the Headway team has been posing questions about the election to high school students, and asking them what questions they have for their peers about the race. We’ve heard from nearly 1,000 students from red, blue and purple states, all representing diverse backgrounds and schools. Their responses have been illuminating. While some high schoolers don’t consider the election particularly relevant to their interests, many do. Even when they can’t vote, many teenagers in every part of the country are highly interested in the election. They are eager to inform themselves about it, craving more forums to discuss it with peers and others, and yearning to see their voices represented in the outcome.So for the next two months, if you’re a teenager in the United States, we want to ask you all about your experience of the election. Consider this your formal invitation to participate in what we’re calling the Headway Election Challenge.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
A joint investigation examined the role money plays in politics in Hawaii. Hear how journalists put the story together in a livestreamed event on July 10. Hawaii is reeling from one of the largest corruption scandals in its history. Former State Senator J. Kalani English and former State Representative Ty Cullen pleaded guilty in February 2022 to accepting tens of thousands of dollars in bribes during their time in office. Starting as early as 2014, and continuing until at least 2020, state and local politicians raked in campaign contributions at late-night fund-raising parties.Hawaii had passed an anti-corruption law in 2005 that was billed as one of the nation’s most ambitious efforts to end pay-to-play government contracting.Join journalists from The Times and Honolulu Civil Beat, a nonprofit newsroom, for a hybrid discussion about how they uncovered systematic failures in Hawaii’s reform efforts at 10:30 a.m. Hawaii time (4:30 p.m. Eastern time) on Wednesday, July 10. Register here.Blaze Lovell, the reporter, and Dean Baquet, who edited the investigation, will discuss the project, which included an analysis of hundreds of thousands of campaign contributions and more than 70,000 state contracts. The conversation will be moderated by Patti Epler, the editor and general manager of Civil Beat.To register for the event and to submit a question for the panelists, visit Civil Beat’s event page. A link to the recording will be sent to everyone who signs up. The event draws on reporting from The Times’s Local Investigations Fellowship, an initiative that gives local journalists a year to produce investigations about their communities. More
Inmates had complained about a monthslong lockdown that cut them off from family members and timely medical care.The former warden of a Wisconsin prison and eight other prison employees were charged on Wednesday in connection with multiple inmate deaths over the last year, the local sheriff said.The prison, Waupun Correctional Institution, about 70 miles northwest of Milwaukee, was the subject of a 2023 report by The New York Times and Wisconsin Watch that found that inmates had been confined to their cells for months and denied access to medical care.The prison’s former warden, Randall Hepp, had left his job earlier this week. He was charged with misconduct in public office, a felony. Mr. Hepp’s arrest was first reported by The Associated Press. His attorney could not immediately be reached for comment.The other prison employees, most of whom worked as correctional officers and registered nurses, were charged with abuse of an inmate. Two of the correctional officers and a sergeant were also charged with misconduct.In announcing the arrests during a Wednesday news conference, Dale J. Schmidt, the sheriff for Dodge County, Wis., said Mr. Hepp and the other employees had failed to adequately care for inmates in their custody. Sheriff Schmidt described in detail four deaths, including one involving a prisoner who had not eaten in days and was “drinking sewage water” and “played in the toilet.” The medical examiner said the cause of death was malnutrition and probable dehydration, and ruled it a homicide.Randall Hepp, former warden of Waupun Correctional Institution.Dodge County (Wis.) Sheriff’s OfficeDo you, or does anyone you know, work for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections?
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
A violent encounter captured on video was part of a surge in jail deaths that spurred an inquiry into the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.Video from inside a Southern California jail shows a violent confrontation in October 2020 in which 10 sheriff’s deputies burst into the cell of a man who was having delusions and resisting medical care, restrained him and repeatedly shocked him, leading to his death days later.Officials in Riverside County did not bring charges against any of the deputies involved in the encounter with the man, Christopher Zumwalt, 39, but quietly agreed in December 2023 to pay $7.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by his family.Depositions from the case and video footage obtained by The New York Times show the frantic and violent minutes when deputies tried to force Mr. Zumwalt out of his cell as he paced and talked incoherently. In the video, deputies wearing helmets and shields toss canisters of pepper spray into the small concrete room, struggle with Mr. Zumwalt, and strap him to an emergency restraint chair. They cover his head with a spit mask and move him to another cell, where he sat unmonitored and appeared to stop breathing for at least five minutes. He died on Oct. 25, 2020, after experiencing cardiac arrest.Mr. Zumwalt, who was arrested near his home on Oct. 22, 2020, on suspicion of public intoxication, was never charged with a crime, and the arrest report indicates that he was to be released with a citation after he sobered up from the methamphetamine he admitted to taking the night before. On the day of his arrest, he was issued a citation for bringing drugs into a jail.In a statement Friday, Sheriff Chad Bianco said his deputies did nothing wrong and characterized the settlement as a business decision by lawyers that does not imply wrongdoing.“The facts of this case clearly show the actions of our deputies were appropriate and lawful,” Sheriff Bianco said, adding that actions taken by Mr. Zumwalt in a “methamphetamine-induced psychosis caused his death.” More
An enormous amount of work is underway to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but who will pay for it?Dear Headway readersHere’s a mood brightener for you: Lots of scientific and business model innovation is now going toward removing carbon from the atmosphere.But there’s a hitch. Who’s going to pay for it?For years now, the hoped-for answer has been “businesses.” As a way of compensating for their emissions, many companies now buy carbon offsets, which pay for things like planting trees or growing cover crops to capture carbon in the soil. They do this either to comply with regulations or out of a sense of corporate citizenship. Europe and the United Kingdom have “compliance markets,” since they have imposed limits on emissions. But in the U.S. there is only a “voluntary carbon market,” reliant on the squishier concept of good will.Private market, public trustThe voluntary carbon market is much smaller than the compliance markets, but it had been growing quickly — up until about a year ago. That’s when prices for offsets swooned and large buyers pulled back. A series of press reports found that many credits, especially those intended to avert deforestation, had flawed underpinnings. Some companies that touted themselves as “carbon neutral” based on offsets they purchased have been sued by customers for making false claims.Those who are trying to put markets to work for nature restoration worried that the critiques, while often merited, could torpedo the industry.“More than anything, it’s perpetuated a lack of trust in the voluntary carbon market, which has greatly affected demand,” the Arbor Day Foundation lamented last year.Trust: Markets can’t scale without it. Trust is forged from common standards and the knowledge that someone’s enforcing them. Carbon markets have neither of those things, yet.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
Polls close at 11 p.m. Eastern time. In the 2022 state primaries, first results were reported 11 minutes later, and the last update of the night was at 6:10 a.m. Eastern time with 48 percent of votes reported. All active registered voters were mailed a ballot, which must be postmarked by Election Day and received […] More
