Polls and Public Opinion

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares79 Views

    Harris Slams Trump in Interview With Charlamagne Tha God: 5 Takeaways

    by

    Vice President Kamala Harris agreed on Tuesday with the radio host Charlamagne Tha God that former President Donald J. Trump was a fascist, going a step further than she had before in casting her Republican rival as a dangerous authoritarian leader.During a free-flowing interview that often spoke to the concerns of Black Americans, Ms. Harris was contrasting her vision for the nation with Mr. Trump’s when Charlamagne jumped in to say: “The other is about fascism. Why can’t we just say it?”“Yes, we can say that,” Ms. Harris replied.Her comments came days after it was revealed that Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Mr. Trump, had called the former president “a fascist to the core,” according to a new book from the journalist Bob Woodward.Ms. Harris’s hourlong appearance on Tuesday in Detroit with Charlamagne — a co-host of the popular hip-hop morning radio show “The Breakfast Club,” which has many Black listeners — was part of a major push to counteract weakening support from Black voters. And during the conversation, she predicted that the election would come down to the wire.“This is a margin-of-error race,” she said. “I’m going to win, but it’s tight.”Here are five takeaways from the interview.Harris sharpened her attack on Trump as ‘weak’ yet dangerous.For much of her vice presidency, some of Ms. Harris’s aides have thought she is too cautious in her public remarks. But when it came to Mr. Trump on Tuesday, she did not hold back.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

    More stories

    • 138 Shares60 Views

      in Elections

      Los votantes de Trump que no creen lo que él dice

      by

      Cuando el expresidente avala la violencia y propone usar al gobierno para atacar a sus enemigos, muchos de sus seguidores asumen que es solo una actuación.Uno de los aspectos más peculiares del atractivo político de Donald Trump es que mucha gente está feliz de votar por él porque simplemente no creen que hará muchas de las cosas que dice que hará.El expresidente ha hablado de militarizar el Departamento de Justicia y encarcelar a sus oponentes políticos. Ha dicho que purgaría al gobierno para expulsar a aquellos que no sean fieles y que tendría problemas para contratar a quien admitiera que las elecciones de 2020 no fueron robadas. Ha propuesto “un día realmente violento” en el que los agentes de la policía podrían ponerse “extraordinariamente duros” con impunidad. Ha prometido deportaciones masivas y ha predicho que sería “una historia sangrienta“. Y aunque muchos de sus partidarios se estremecen de la emoción ante semejante discurso, hay muchos otros que creen que todo forma parte de una gran actuación.Hay, por supuesto, pruebas de lo contrario. Durante el mandato de Trump, parte de su retórica autocrática se hizo realidad. Sí puso en marcha una prohibición musulmana; sí ordenó que se investigara a sus enemigos; sí fomentó una turba cuando las elecciones no se resolvieron a su favor. Pero en otros casos se vio obstaculizado, y gran parte de su parloteo de hombre fuerte se quedó en eso.Así es como algunos de sus votantes creen que podría ser otro mandato. Así es como racionalizan su retórica, concediéndole un beneficio inverso de la duda. Ellos dudan; él se beneficia.La semana pasada, en el interior de un pequeño recinto de música en el centro de Detroit, en pleno día, se podía ver este fenómeno con bastante claridad.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

    • 113 Shares83 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en EE. UU.: una contienda reñida sin precedentes

      by

      Es difícil pensar en unas elecciones en las que tantos estados en disputa estuvieran tan igualados en las encuestas a estas alturas.Haiyun Jiang para The New York TimesLa contienda presidencial está cada vez más reñida.A tres semanas, el promedio de encuestas de The New York Times muestra que Kamala Harris y Donald Trump están esencialmente parejos en los siete principales estados disputados, con una diferencia de menos de un punto porcentual en cinco de ellos.Es difícil pensar en unas elecciones en las que tantos estados cruciales estuvieran tan igualados en las encuestas a estas alturas.Según nuestros cálculos, 2004 fue la última elección en la que las encuestas mostraban a un candidato encabezando los estados decisivos por alrededor de un punto: la ventaja de George W. Bush en estados como Ohio y Wisconsin. Pero incluso entonces tenía una ventaja perceptible, aunque estrecha, en el Colegio Electoral: John Kerry necesitaba arrasar en la mayoría de los estados reñidos para imponerse. Las encuestas no podían calificarse de empate, como las de hoy.¿Antes de 2004? Las elecciones de 2000, por supuesto, pero los sondeos no fueron tan parejos como el resultado real. Si buscamos aún más atrás, es difícil encontrar algo. Nunca ha habido unas elecciones con tantas encuestas que indiquen una contienda tan reñida.¿Está la contienda realmente estrechándose?Los promedios de las encuestas están más parejos que nunca, pero eso no significa necesariamente que haya habido un gran cambio —o incluso ningún cambio— en la contienda.Los mayores cambios en el promedio esta semana se han producido en Míchigan y Wisconsin. Y en este caso, “mayores” no significa “grandes”. Trump ganó un solo punto según nuestros promedios, el tipo de movimiento que puede parecer radical en unas elecciones tan divididas y estables, pero que no habría sido digno de mención en ciclos anteriores. También es un cambio lo suficientemente pequeño como para que una o dos encuestas de alta calidad que favorezcan a Harris la próxima semana puedan hacer que sus números vuelvan a subir rápidamente. De hecho, fueron solo una o dos encuestas de alta calidad las que hicieron bajar sus números. More

    • 175 Shares88 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Por qué a Trump le va tan bien con los votantes negros e hispanos?

      by

      Cinco posibles explicaciones sobre el aumento de apoyo al expresidente, sobre todo entre los hombres jóvenes.Un acto de Trump en el Bronx en mayo mostró el apoyo de negros y latinos.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesEn 2016, Donald Trump se convirtió en el candidato republicano y finalmente ganó la presidencia tras llamar violadores a muchos inmigrantes mexicanos y afirmar falsamente que Barack Obama no había nacido en Estados Unidos.Ocho años después, las encuestas sugieren que bien podría volver a la Casa Blanca al obtener mejores resultados entre los votantes negros e hispanos combinados que cualquier candidato presidencial republicano desde la promulgación de la Ley de Derechos Civiles en 1964.¿Cómo es posible? Es una pregunta que me hacen a menudo, y las últimas encuestas del New York Times/Siena College entre votantes negros e hispanos de todo el país representan nuestro mejor esfuerzo por responderla.Al igual que nuestras otras encuestas de este ciclo, los sondeos revelan que a Trump le va inusualmente bien para un republicano entre los votantes negros e hispanos. En general, Kamala Harris va a la cabeza, 78 por ciento a 15 por ciento, entre los votantes negros, y va a la cabeza, 56-37, entre los votantes hispanos.Casi de cualquier manera que podamos medirlo, Trump está funcionando tan bien o mejor entre los votantes negros e hispanos que cualquier republicano en la memoria reciente. En 2020, el apoyo de las personas negras a Joe Biden era del 92 por ciento entre los votantes de los principales partidos; su apoyo hispano era del 63 por ciento, según cálculos del Times.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

    • 163 Shares92 Views

      in Elections

      Most Voters Have Been Offended by Trump. It’s Not Always a Deal Breaker.

      by

      The vast majority of voters across the United States say they have been offended at some point by former President Donald J. Trump. But a sizable number of those voters say that has not stopped them from supporting him.Overall, 70 percent of voters said that the former president had ever offended them, according to new polling from The New York Times and Siena College.But big differences emerge when voters were asked when they were offended.Nearly half — 46 percent — of the group said that they had been offended recently. Ms. Harris won that group by a margin of more than 80 percentage points.But it was a different story among the 23 percent who said that they had been offended by Mr. Trump, but further in the past. Mr. Trump won that group by roughly 40 percentage points.Donald Trump wins voters who said they found him offensive, but not recently, by a wide margin Has Donald Trump ever said anything that you found offensive?

      Source: A New York Times/Siena College poll of 3,385 voters nationwide conducted from Sept. 29 to Oct. 6By The New York TimesThe question of offensive rhetoric has been a feature of Mr. Trump’s candidacy as long as he has been running for president. He began his first run for the presidency in 2015 by claiming that Mexico was sending “rapists” into America. He won that election after a tape surfaced in which bragged about grabbing women’s genitals. More recently he falsely claimed that immigrants in Ohio were eating people’s pets.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

    • 38 Shares96 Views

      in Elections

      Ignore the Polls

      by

      Here’s a bit of advice to help maintain your sanity over the next few weeks until Election Day: Just ignore the polls. Unless you’re a campaign professional or a gambler, you’re probably looking at them for the same reason the rest of us are: to know who’ll win. Or at least to feel like you know who’ll win. But they just can’t tell you that.Back in 2016, Harry Enten, then at FiveThirtyEight, calculated the final polling error in every presidential election between 1968 and 2012. On average, the polls missed by two percentage points. In 2016, an American Association for Public Opinion Research postmortem found that the average error of the national polls was 2.2 points, but the polls of individual states were off by 5.1 points. In 2020, the national polls were off by 4.5 points and the state-level polls missed, again, by 5.1 points.You could imagine a world in which these errors are random and cancel one another out. Perhaps Donald Trump’s support is undercounted by three points in Michigan but overcounted by three points in Wisconsin. But errors often systematically favor one candidate or the other. In both 2016 and 2020, for instance, state-level polls tended to undercount Trump supporters. The polls overestimated Hillary Clinton’s margin by three points in 2016 and Joe Biden’s margin by 4.3 points in 2020.In a blowout election, an error of a few points in one direction or another is meaningless. In the California Senate race, for example, Adam Schiff, a Democrat, is leading Steve Garvey, a Republican, by between 17 and 33 points, depending on the poll. Even a polling error of 10 points wouldn’t matter to the outcome of the race.But that’s not where the presidential election sits. As of Oct. 10, The New York Times’s polling average had Kamala Harris leading Trump by three points nationally. That’s tight, but the seven swing states are tighter: Neither candidate is leading by more than two points in any of them.Imagine the polls perform better in 2024 than they did in either 2016 or 2020: They’re off, remarkably, by merely two points in the swing states. Huzzah! That would be consistent with Harris winning every swing state. It would also be consistent with Trump winning every swing state. This is not some outlandish scenario. According to Nate Silver’s election model, the most likely electoral outcome “is Harris sweeping all seven swing states. And the next most likely is Trump sweeping all seven.”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

    • 75 Shares50 Views

      in Elections

      November’s Second-Most-Important Election Is in Florida

      by

      I’ll never forget the first time I heard my oldest daughter’s heartbeat. My wife was experiencing trouble in the first three months of pregnancy, and we were worried she was miscarrying. We rode together to her doctor’s office, full of anxiety. And then, we heard the magical sound — the pulsing of our little girl’s tiny heart. We didn’t know if she would ultimately be OK, but there was one thing we knew: Our daughter was alive.I’ve long supported so-called heartbeat laws. A well-drafted heartbeat law bans abortion after a heartbeat is detected, which typically occurs roughly six weeks into pregnancy. Whether you refer to that sound we heard all the way back in 1998 as a heartbeat or simply as a form of early cardiac activity, it sends the same message, that a separate human life is growing and developing in the mother’s womb.The significance of that heartbeat is the reason I believe that the second-most-important election of 2024 is the Florida contest over Amendment 4, a ballot measure that would enshrine a right to abortion in the Florida Constitution.The text of the amendment is broad: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s health care provider.” And it is aimed straight at what I believe to be one of the most reasonable pro-life laws in the nation.Florida’s Heartbeat Protection Act bans abortions if the gestational age of the fetus is over six weeks, but it also contains exceptions for pregnancies that are a result of rape, incest or human trafficking; for fatal fetal abnormality; and to preserve the life of the mother or “avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”Properly interpreted (problems interpreting pro-life laws have tragically led to too many terrible incidents), this is not a law that leaves women vulnerable to dangerous pregnancy complications. It has elements that are necessary to assure doctors that they won’t be prosecuted if they provide life or health-saving care. In short, it represents a statutory effort to respect the lives and health of both mother and child.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

    • 150 Shares101 Views

      in Elections

      Trump mantiene ventaja en Arizona y Harris en Pensilvania, según una encuesta

      by

      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

    • 175 Shares71 Views

      in Elections

      A Mystery Repeats: Harris Up 4 in Pennsylvania, and Trump Up 6 in Arizona

      by

      Being uncertain about our earlier poll results but finding almost the same numbers the next time around.A recent rally for Kamala Harris in Pittsburgh. Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesAt the end of our last wave of post-debate battleground polls, there were two state poll results that didn’t seem to fit the rest.One was Pennsylvania: Kamala Harris led by four percentage points, making it her best result in the battlegrounds. It was our only state poll conducted immediately after the debate, when her supporters might have been especially excited to respond to a poll.The other was Arizona: Donald J. Trump led by five points, making it his best result among the battlegrounds. Even stranger, it was a huge swing from our previous poll of the state, which Vice President Harris had led by five points.In both cases, it seemed possible that another New York Times/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College poll would yield a significantly different result. With that in mind, we decided to take an additional measure of Arizona and Pennsylvania before our final polls at the end of the month.The result? Essentially the same as our prior polls.Ms. Harris leads by four points in Pennsylvania, just as she did immediately after the final debate.Mr. Trump leads by six points in Arizona, about the same as the five-point lead he held three weeks ago.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