Polls and Public Opinion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Who’s Winning the New York Mayor’s Race? Even Pollsters Are Confused.

      by

      The city’s new system of ranked-choice voting, along with a crowded field of Democrats, has complicated efforts to do comprehensive voter surveys.Much of the focus of the New York City mayoral race has centered on one or two perceived front-runners: Andrew Yang, the 2020 presidential candidate, and Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president.But that perception is almost entirely based on what has been an unusually quiet polling season. None of the three major public pollsters in the New York City region have done comprehensive surveys in the mayor’s race.And of those big three pollsters — Quinnipiac University Poll, Marist College Institute for Public Opinion and Siena College Research Institute — two have no intention of conducting any such polls before the June 22 Democratic primary. At this point in 2013, the three pollsters had together put out more than a dozen independent horse-race polls on the Democratic primary.This year, New York voters will have to continue to rely on polls from outfits with less of a New York track record, or on surveys released by parties with possibly ulterior motives, including mayoral campaigns and special interest groups.The dearth of independent polls has a lot to do with what is arguably the biggest unknown in the race for mayor (aside from who the ultimate victor will be): how exactly the city’s new system of ranked-choice voting will affect voter behavior.For the first time in a mayoral primary, city voters will be able to rank up to five candidates in order of preference. When the Board of Elections begins tabulating the results, if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes, all votes for the lowest-performing candidate will be eliminated, and those voters’ second-choice picks will be counted instead. The cycle continues until one winner remains.It is unclear how well-acquainted voters are with the new system, or how they will behave once they get into the voting booth. Will they in fact rank up to five candidates, or just vote for the one they prefer? Will they even be familiar enough with the candidates to rank five of them?“The reason we haven’t seen a lot of quality polling is the ranked-order voting,” said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. “There isn’t a whole lot of track record as to the behavior voters are likely to pursue once they get into the voting booth.”Don Levy, director of the Siena College Research Institute, and Doug Schwartz, the associate vice president of the Quinnipiac University Poll, offered similar views on the challenges posed by ranked-choice voting.“We worried about how hard it would be to be accurate,” Mr. Levy said.They voiced other concerns, too. Primaries are typically low-turnout affairs, which makes it hard for pollsters to find “likely voters” to survey. Voters are only just beginning to pay attention to the race. And many are presumably unaware that the primary will be in June, instead of September, as it has been in the past.“If you just think of the arithmetic of doing polling, if it’s harder to find people who are ‘likely,’ you’re going to do lots and lots of phone calls,” Mr. Levy said. “It’s going to be more expensive. It takes more time. Instead of being able to do it in three polling days, it takes six or seven.”The ballot also has 13 Democratic candidates for mayor, and it is hard for pollsters to go through the whole list and then gather voters’ second, third, fourth and fifth choices without the participant hanging up the phone.All of those considerations make polling the race in a comprehensive way “friggin’ expensive,” said Neil Newhouse, partner and co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm out of Virginia that surveyed the mayor’s race — including all of the ranked-choice voting tabulations — for Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank in New York.In the poll, Mr. Yang received the most votes in the first round, but in the end, Mr. Adams triumphed.“It’s not predictive,” Mr. Newhouse said. “It is the classic snapshot in time.”Six weeks before the 2013 primary election, the polls suggested that Bill de Blasio, then the city’s public advocate, was still trailing City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who was long presumed to be the front-runner, and running neck-and-neck with William C. Thompson, the former New York City comptroller.But then the polls began to indicate something surprising: a Mr. de Blasio surge. In the final stretch, the polls showed Mr. de Blasio gaining on Ms. Quinn, outflanking Mr. Thompson and ultimately winning the race.“Christine Quinn was going to win, then Anthony Weiner was a player, Thompson was a safe choice and then bang — all of a sudden there’s de Blasio,” Mr. Levy said.The mayor’s race of 2021 is lacking much of that dramatic flair, and the absence of much independent public polling is not the only reason.The pandemic has kept voters and candidates on video forums for much of the campaign. It has limited opportunities for the candidates and their issues to enter everyday discussion. But the lack of trusted public polling has left close observers without the sort of information they are accustomed to.“I’m a fairly sophisticated observer and I don’t know what the hell is going on with any degree of confidence,” said Doug Muzzio, a professor of Public Affairs at Baruch College.Independent polling can serve an important purpose, by informing the public and journalists of the relative strength of the candidates, and the influence that events have on their standing..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}They can also serve a practical purpose for campaigns. Though campaigns have their own internal polling, more credible-seeming public polling can be useful in convincing reluctant donors that a candidate is in fact viable. It can also draw favorable media attention and boost campaign-worker morale.Siena did do one poll in conjunction with AARP that asked respondents who were 50 and older three questions pitting the Democratic candidates against each other. Marist is slated to do a poll to determine who can participate in the June 16 debate, yet it remains unclear if there will be horse-race questions, or just issue-based questions, said Mr. Miringoff, the director.“It’s going to be very difficult, if we do it,” Mr. Miringoff added.In the absence of much polling, New Yorkers have been left to cite polls from campaigns, special interest groups, and up-and-coming polling houses, whose polling methods make some traditionalists skittish.Emerson College Polling, out of Boston, has done two polls in the race for mayor, and is expected to soon release a third.Mr. Levy, of the Siena poll, said that Emerson has a “growing track record” and is “worth taking seriously.” But he also raised concerns about Emerson’s reliance on online panels of registered voters and its use of text messaging. “The plus side of texting is people look at their texts,” Mr. Levy said. “But are you going to hit a link in a text that you’re not familiar with?”Spencer Kimball, the director of Emerson College Polling, defended the approach, suggesting that it was “the future of polling.”According to Mr. Kimball, more than 90 percent of American adults have a cellphone, while only half the population has a landline. To rule out modern communication methods is to cancel out a significant, and growing, part of the voting population, he said.“These folks that are using the live operators, that’s great,” Mr. Kimball said. “That’s $35,000 a survey and it’s not perfect.”Not every member of the political class is mourning the absence of robust public polling in the election.Mr. Levy said he and “every pollster” he knows is frustrated by the media’s comparative attention to horse-race polling, and the relative inattention to polls they do the rest of the year, which focus on how participants feel about different issues.“I like pre-election polling that at least touches on what issues are most salient to voters at the same time,” he said. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Case Throws Abortion Into 2022 Election Picture

      by

      Supporters and opponents of abortion rights say a major ruling just before the midterm elections could upend political calculations for the two parties.WASHINGTON — Within hours of the Supreme Court accepting a case that could lead it to overturn or scale back a landmark abortion rights ruling, Senator Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat facing re-election next year, issued a dire warning to supporters: The fate of Roe v Wade is on the line.“We cannot move backwards,” Mr. Bennet said in a campaign statement. “Colorado was a leader in legalizing abortion — six years before Roe v Wade. I will always fight for reproductive justice and to ensure everyone has safe and legal access to the health care they need.”His declaration was among the first in a quickly intensifying clash over abortion, long a defining issue to many voters but one likely to gain additional prominence as the court weighs the possibility of rolling back the constitutional protections it provided to abortion rights in Roe 48 years ago.Motivated in part by a belief that the Supreme Court will give them new latitude to restrict access, Republican-dominated states continue to adopt strict new legislation, with Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signing into law on Wednesday a prohibition on abortions after as early as six weeks. The law, sure to face legal challenges, is one of more than 60 new state-level restrictions enacted this year, with many more pending.With the Supreme Court ruling likely to come next year — less than six months before midterm elections that will determine control of Congress and the future of President Biden’s agenda — the court’s expanded conservative majority has injected new volatility into an already turbulent political atmosphere, leaving both parties to game out the potential consequences.Republicans had already shown that they intended to take aim at Democrats over social issues, and abortion will only amplify the culture wars.Nearly all agree that the latest fight over Roe, which has been building for years, is certain to have significant political repercussions. Conservative voters are traditionally more energized than liberals about the abortion debate, and for many of them it has been the single issue spurring voter turnout.But Democrats, likely to be on the defensive given their current hold on the White House and Congress, say a ruling broadly restricting abortion rights by a court whose ideological makeup has been altered by three Trump-era appointees could backfire on Republicans and galvanize women.“Outlawing Roe would create a backlash that would have critical unintended consequences for those who would like to repeal it,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire and a leading voice in Congress for abortion rights. “The women of the country would be very upset, particularly young women, that there would be such a deliberate effort to limit women’s access to reproductive choices.”Those on the right, already anticipating a favorable ruling given the conservative tilt of the 6-3 court, say they expect liberals to seize on the issue to try to “scare” voters. But they believe they can make a case for “reasonable” abortion limits.“This is clearly going to invigorate people on both sides of the debate, but this is a winning issue for pro-life candidates,” said Mallory Quigley, a spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony List, a conservative nonprofit.She said she did not expect conservative voting enthusiasm to ebb if the right triumphed at the Supreme Court, an outcome that would bring to fruition years of emphasis on electing anti-abortion lawmakers at the federal and state levels and working aggressively to confirm conservative judges.“What happened on Monday is evidence that elections have consequences,” Ms. Quigley said, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision to take a case about a Mississippi law that seeks to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — about two months earlier than Roe and subsequent decisions allow.Anti-abortion activists in the Texas State Capitol in Austin in March.  Gov. Greg Abbott on Wednesday signed into law one of the country’s most restrictive abortion measures.Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman, via Associated PressThe Supreme Court action may have political ramifications before next year. The case is likely to be argued weeks before Virginia voters head to the polls in November to elect a new governor in a race often seen as a midterm bellwether. Terry McAuliffe, a former governor and most likely the Democratic nominee, is eager for another political battle over abortion rights, rattling off his record protecting clinics in the state and vetoing legislation that would impose restrictions.“This is going to be a huge motivator,” he said in an interview. “In 2013, I promised women I would be a brick wall to protect their rights. And I will be a brick wall again.”Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, downplayed the potential effect of the court ruling, though he said that as an abortion opponent he welcomed the court taking up the case. But Mr. Scott said he believed voters would be more persuaded by what he described as the Biden administration’s failings on issues such as immigration, the economy, taxes, inflation and more.While the lines have always been starkly drawn on abortion into the pro and anti camps, public opinion has proved more nuanced, with a clear majority backing Roe but majorities also favoring some limits. How the Supreme Court comes down on the fine points of abortion law could determine how the issue plays in the elections.“Considering the decision will likely be made five months ahead of the election, and depending on the decision itself, it’s too early to measure its ultimate impact on the midterms,” said Nathan Gonzales, the editor of the nonpartisan Inside Elections. Mr. Gonazales said it could conceivably energize Republicans but also pay benefits for Democrats — a view shared by others.President Donald J. Trump helped inspire record turnout last year from Democratic voters, who were eager to reject his administration. With Mr. Trump no longer on the ballot, many Democrats say the Supreme Court case could provide crucial midterm motivation, particularly for suburban women in swing districts who were instrumental in Democratic wins last year.Katie Paris, the founder of Red, Wine and Blue, a group focused on organizing suburban female voters for Democrats across the country, said the Supreme Court news immediately touched off alarm on the Facebook groups and other social media channels run by her organization.“When the news came out that this was going to be taken up, it was like, ‘Everybody get ready. This is real,’” she said. “We know what this court could do, and if they do it, the backlash will be severe.”Tresa Undem, a pollster who specializes in surveys on gender issues, said that abortion rights would continue to be an effective cause for Democrats because voters link it to larger concerns about power and control that motivated female voters during the Trump administration.“Democrats and independents have felt a loss of control and power from people at the top,” said Ms. Undem, who has conducted polling for several abortion rights organizations. “Now you have six individuals who are going to make these decisions about your body in this personal area that will affect the rest of your life.”Mr. Bennet said he could not predict the political implications of the court taking on abortion, but he wanted to alert his supporters that something of consequence was at hand.“There are a lot of people who have worked for a long time to overturn Roe v. Wade, and that is what is at stake,” he said. “I think people needed to hear that in the wake of the Supreme Court taking this case from Mississippi.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Ahead of 2022, House Democrats Aim to Fix Their Polling Problem

      by

      This time, party leaders hope, they won’t be stunned by Republican voters coming out of the woodwork.Democrats control both houses of Congress — but just barely.Cast your mind back to October 2020, and you might remember expecting things to turn out a bit different. Polls suggested that Democratic House candidates were on track to nearly match their historic margins in the 2018 midterms. But that didn’t happen.For the second presidential cycle in a row, Democrats were stunned by the number of voters who came out in support of Donald J. Trump and his Republican allies down the ballot.This week, the House Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, presented the results of an inquiry into the 2020 election, aimed at understanding what had gone askew for the party — and why, after the corrections that pollsters made in the wake of 2016, surveys were still missing the mark.The report came to two interrelated conclusions, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, the campaign committee chairman, said in a phone interview today. One is that Trump voters are disproportionately likely to refuse to take a poll, a conclusion echoed in other post-mortem reports that have recently been released by private Democratic pollsters. The other is that Mr. Trump’s presence on the ballot appears to have driven up turnout among the Republican base.“In 2020, what we realized is that the polling error really equaled Trump turnout,” Mr. Maloney said. “So in polling, you’ve got this mistake in the assumption about what the electorate will look like.”Because support for Mr. Trump lines up with a relative unwillingness to be polled, survey researchers may think they’ve reached the right share of, say, rural-dwelling, white men without college degrees. But in fact what they’ve reached is often a Democratic-skewing segment of that demographic.In 2018, when polls were relatively accurate, this didn’t factor in as much, presumably because the most anti-institutional and anti-polling voters were also those who were likely to turn out only if Mr. Trump himself was on the ballot.In 2020, Mr. Trump’s popularity with a typically low-turnout base meant that an upsurge in turnout actually helped Republicans more than Democrats — a rare occurrence. “Because low-propensity voters turned out for Trump in much higher numbers than our low-propensity voters turned out for us, it ripples through the data and has a big effect,” Mr. Maloney said.He has been through this process before: In 2017, after Mr. Trump’s upset win over Hillary Clinton, the congressman, then in his third term, led an inquiry into what had gone wrong for the Democrats. That work helped put him in position for his current role as the head of the party’s House campaign arm.This time around, he put together a team including campaign consultants, academics and other Democratic members of Congress, and they assembled what he called “a first-of-its-kind national polling database,” drawing from over 600 polls of House races, as well as voter-file and other local-level data.Last year, because Democrats underestimated the extent to which Mr. Trump’s presence on the ballot would drive up Republican turnout, their strategists mistakenly thought that a number of seats that had flipped blue in the 2018 midterms would remain safe in 2020. Six Democrats who had won for the first time in 2018 lost their 2020 races by less than two percentage points.Mr. Maloney said he was only half-swayed by arguments that ascribed a lot of impact to Republican attacks on the “defund the police” movement and “democratic socialism.” He said that the messenger had been far more important than the message.“What you realize is that it is true that the lies and distortions about socialism and ‘defund’ carried a punch — no argument from me,” Mr. Maloney said.“But I think the power of those lies has been exaggerated when you understand that Trump,” he added, was responsible for turning out “a bunch of people who were going into the voting booth.”In next year’s midterms, he said that Republicans would be running a risk if they were counting on Trump-level engagement from base voters, given that his name wouldn’t be on the ballot.“It leads you to ask: Will this post-Trump toxicity of QAnon and conspiracy theories and Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene and the attack on the Capitol — will that message work without Trump’s turnout?” Mr. Maloney said. “The research suggests that they have taken too much comfort in the power of messages that were effective, yes, but that were enormously helped by Trump’s power to turn out voters.”Still, he cautioned against taking comfort in the results of the report, which at the end of the day serves as a reminder of just how out-of-reach an entire swath of the population remains — for mainstream pollsters and Democratic candidates alike.On the tactics front, the report concluded that in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, Democratic spending had been heavily tilted away from grass-roots campaigning and toward TV ads, which mostly ran late in the campaign and ended up doing little to tip things in the party’s favor.Going forward, Mr. Maloney said, he plans to keep the 600-poll database in use. The D.C.C.C. has already been using it in special elections this year to analyze messages for effectiveness.“We think there’s a lot to learn, we’re going to learn as we go, and you’re always building the ship as you’re sailing it,” he said. “In this case it’s important that we apply what we’ve learned to as many contexts as we can.”On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Here's How Disinformation Drives Voting Laws

      by

      After former President Donald J. Trump undermined public confidence in elections, Republican lawmakers are defending voting restrictions by citing a lack of public confidence.When State Representative Bobby Kaufmann of Iowa spoke in February in support of a restrictive voting bill he was sponsoring, he made what might once have been a startling acknowledgment: He could not point to any problems with November’s election that demonstrated a need for new rules.But many Iowans believed there had been problems, he said. And that was reason enough to allow less early voting, shorten Election Day polling hours, put new limits on absentee balloting and forbid counties to have more than one ballot drop box.“The ultimate voter suppression is a very large swath of the electorate not having faith in our election systems,” Mr. Kaufmann, a Republican, said in defense of his bill, which was signed into law in March. “And for whatever reason, political or not, there are thousands upon thousands of Iowans that do not have faith in our election systems.”State Representative Bobby Kaufmann of Iowa said new voting restrictions were needed because many voters believed the 2020 election had been insecure.Charlie Neibergall/Associated PressFormer President Donald J. Trump’s monthslong campaign to delegitimize the 2020 election didn’t overturn the results. But his unfounded claims gutted his supporters’ trust in the electoral system, laying the foundation for numerous Republican-led bills pushing more restrictive voter rules.The bills demonstrate how disinformation can take on a life of its own, forming a feedback loop that shapes policy for years to come. When promoted with sufficient intensity, falsehoods — whether about election security or the coronavirus or other topics — can shape voters’ attitudes toward policies, and lawmakers can cite those attitudes as the basis for major changes.The embrace of the falsehoods also showcases the continuing power of Mr. Trump inside the Republican Party, which has widely adopted and weaponized his election claims. Many Republicans, eager to gain his support, have raced to champion the new voting laws. Those who have stood up to his falsehoods have paid the price. Representative Liz Cheney was ousted from her House leadership post on Wednesday after repudiating what she called the “big lie.”Lawmakers in at least 33 states have cited low public confidence in election integrity in their public comments as a justification for bills to restrict voting, according to a tally by The New York Times. In several states — including Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Iowa — the bills have already been signed into law, and legislation in Texas is very close to passage.Voter fraud is extremely rare in the United States, and officials in every state and at the federal level affirmed that the 2020 election was secure.Supporters of President Donald J. Trump in December, protesting what they claimed was a stolen election.Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times“It’s like a perpetual motion machine — you create the fear of fraud out of vapors and then cut down on people’s votes because of the fog you’ve created,” said Michael Waldman, the president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “Politicians, for partisan purposes, lied to supporters about widespread fraud. The supporters believe the lies, and then that belief creates this rationale for the politicians to say, ‘Well, I know it’s not really true, but look how worried everybody is.’”Calls to change election laws because of public perceptions are not new: Reports in 2001, 2005 and 2008, for example, warned of the potential repercussions of voter distrust. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law based partly on the argument that it would increase confidence in the state’s elections. And confidence tends to fall at least somewhat after every election among voters in the losing party, according to Charles Stewart III, a director of the Election Data and Science Lab at M.I.T.But there are some key differences this year, voting rights and disinformation experts say. First, the scale of the legislative efforts — as measured both by the number of bills introduced and the extent of the restrictions they propose — is greater than in past election cycles. Second, the falling confidence in the electoral system is directly traceable to a disinformation campaign. And the drop in confidence among Republicans is far steeper than anything seen in past cycles.Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of the Wisconsin State Assembly, told reporters in January, “We have to improve the process when literally hundreds of thousands of people in Wisconsin doubt that the election was held in a way that didn’t have substantial charges of fraud.” State Senator Judy Ward of Pennsylvania, a Republican, wrote in a memo that a bill she had introduced would free elections “from the shadow of doubt that has been cast over the democratic process.” State Senator Ralph Hise of North Carolina, also a Republican, said in March, “Even if there is no cause for that suspicion, perception impacts trust, and that’s something to take seriously.”In an email to The Times, Mr. Hise said it would be wrong to suggest “that Republicans are ‘evolving’ their arguments in bad faith to try to suppress votes.”“Lack of voter confidence is real; the rhetoric surrounding the 2020 election certainly contributes to that, but it existed for many years before 2020 and impacts voters from both parties,” he said. “Elected officials have a responsibility to respond to declining voter confidence, and failure to do so is dangerous to the health of our republic.”Ms. Ward, when asked whether she considered low voter confidence a sufficient basis for new laws, said, “We must work in a bipartisan way to restore confidence in our elections or, I fear, many people will walk away from the process because they no longer believe in the integrity of our election system.”A spokesman for Mr. Vos did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did Mr. Kaufmann, the Iowa representative.Democrats from the Georgia House protested a restrictive voting law outside the State Capitol in March.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesArguments about the public’s flagging confidence in elections have made their way into the official text of bills, including in Georgia, which enacted a sweeping law limiting drop boxes and provisional balloting, requiring identification for absentee voting and making it illegal to give food or water to people waiting in line to vote, among other changes.The legislation, 98 pages long, was an opening salvo in a Republican effort that has resulted in new restrictions in several swing states and is still continuing. It put Georgia at the center of a national storm, with Major League Baseball moving the All-Star Game and big employers like Delta Air Lines and Coca-Cola denouncing the restrictions under public pressure. And its supporters’ stated rationale, as outlined in a lengthy introduction to the bill, was almost entirely about voter confidence..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-w739ur{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-w739ur{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-w739ur{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-9s9ecg{margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}.css-1jiwgt1{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;margin-bottom:1.25rem;}.css-8o2i8v{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;-webkit-align-self:flex-end;-ms-flex-item-align:end;align-self:flex-end;}.css-8o2i8v p{margin-bottom:0;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-1rh1sk1{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-1rh1sk1 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-1rh1sk1 em{font-style:italic;}.css-1rh1sk1 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;text-decoration-color:#ccd9e3;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#ccc;text-decoration-color:#ccc;}.css-1rh1sk1 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}“Following the 2018 and 2020 elections, there was a significant lack of confidence in Georgia election systems, with many electors concerned about allegations of rampant voter suppression and many electors concerned about allegations of rampant voter fraud,” the bill said. “The changes made in this legislation in 2021 are designed to address the lack of elector confidence in the election system on all sides of the political spectrum, to reduce the burden on election officials, and to streamline the process of conducting elections in Georgia by promoting uniformity in voting.”The “all sides” framing belied the fact that the bill was supported only by Republican lawmakers and that, while it contained some provisions expanding voting access, it was geared mostly toward mollifying those who believed “allegations of rampant voter fraud” — without ever saying those allegations, which are false — were true.These sorts of arguments are unsurprising after a disinformation campaign like Mr. Trump’s, experts said, and they tend to insulate legislative efforts from challenges based on the facts of how rare fraud is.“We are not going to fact-check our way out of problems of trust,” said Renée DiResta, a disinformation researcher at the Stanford Internet Observatory. “People believe these claims because they trust the people who are making these claims, and they’ve also been conditioned to believe that anyone not making these claims and anyone on the other side is inherently untrustworthy.”Disinformation experts said improving voter confidence in elections was a sensible legislative goal. But they denounced the circularity of the current push and the extent to which it was premised on disinformation.“It is absolutely legitimate to be concerned about election integrity,” said David J. Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research. “Even though fraud isn’t widespread, it’s good for voters to know there are protections in place against it. What’s not OK is to invent fake threats and to ignore the evidence and to act in a way that’s clearly designed to result in a partisan outcome.”The best way to combat a lack of voter confidence is “not to manufacture a false narrative and then prescribe a solution that would presumably fix the false narrative,” but “to correct the false narrative,” Mr. Becker said. “Say out loud, ‘The 2020 election was secure.’” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Cuomo’s Approval Rating Has Fallen. He Could Still Win Re-Election.

      by

      Allegations of sexual harassment have hurt Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s favorability rating. But 57 percent of Democrats say he is doing a good job, a new poll shows, enough support to give him a decent chance at a fourth term.Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York has not had much good news over the past few months. His poll numbers have not been much of an exception.A new Siena College poll this week found that Mr. Cuomo’s ratings had fallen to the lowest level of his tenure, with allegations of sexual harassment continuing to erode his support.But for Mr. Cuomo, the worst poll numbers of his time as governor may still be enough to win re-election. His ratings are worse than they were in early 2014 or 2018, when he went on to win easily, but not by so much that it would make him an obvious underdog in pursuit of a fourth term.The governor’s favorability rating among Democrats in the Siena poll was 56 percent, while 37 percent had an unfavorable view of him. The poll found that registered Democrats were divided on whether they would vote to re-elect Mr. Cuomo. By these measures, Mr. Cuomo is more vulnerable than he was four years ago, but he has not lost so much ground as to close off his path to renomination, either.And by another measure, Mr. Cuomo’s position is also stronger now than it was in 2018: 57 percent of Democrats say he is doing a good or excellent job as governor.That Mr. Cuomo could still win is not an indication of any great political resilience. Nor does it imply he is an overwhelming favorite, even without considering whether his standing may diminish further with new revelations.Much will depend on the conclusions of several investigations that are underway, including one by the F.B.I. on whether his administration provided false data on deaths from Covid-19 in nursing homes, and another by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, into the sexual harassment allegations. Findings by Ms. James that lead to an embarrassing impeachment trial could prompt more voters to shun him.Yet so far, Mr. Cuomo maintains enough support to have a good chance to prevail. If he does in the final account, he will have overcome allegations of impropriety — and a pummeling from progressive activists on social media — with persistent support from the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party.In some ways, Mr. Cuomo’s popularity at the peak of the pandemic — when he was earning raves for his daily updates — was an exception to the general rule of his tenure. He has often had fairly weak ratings, at least for the governor of a blue state. In April 2018, as Mr. Cuomo was vying for re-election, a Siena College poll found that just 62 percent of registered Democrats in New York had a favorable view of the governor, while 32 percent had an unfavorable view of him. Only 57 percent of Democrats said they would vote to re-elect him, while 32 percent said they would prefer someone else. Just 53 percent thought he was doing a good or excellent job.In the end, Mr. Cuomo won renomination with 64 percent of the vote. His 34 point margin of victory over Cynthia Nixon was slightly larger than his plus-30 favorability rating or the 24 point margin by which Democrats said they would prefer to re-elect him over someone else. It would be a mistake to assume on this basis that Mr. Cuomo is a clear favorite to win the primary so long as his ratings stay above water among Democrats. Indeed, Democrats are divided on whether they want to re-elect Mr. Cuomo, with only 46 percent saying they prefer to vote to re-elect him and 43 percent saying they would prefer someone else.Why is Mr. Cuomo still competitive for renomination? One factor is that New York Democrats remain equivocal about the severity or veracity of the allegations against him.Democrats continue to believe Mr. Cuomo has done a good job handling the pandemic in New York, despite the revelation that his administration has hid data about the death toll in nursing homes. While 59 percent in the Siena poll say he has done either a poor or “fair” job of making public all data about such deaths, a sizable 34 percent of registered Democrats believe that he has done a good or excellent job of making such data available. And a 64 percent majority of Democrats continue to say that Mr. Cuomo has, in general, done a good or excellent job of providing information during the pandemic.Democrats are even more divided on the multiple allegations of sexual harassment against Mr. Cuomo, which he has denied. Just 39 percent believe he has committed sexual harassment, the Siena poll showed, while 30 percent disagree and another 30 percent are not sure. The precipitous decline in his favorability ratings since the allegations became public suggest that many Democrats take the charges seriously and have re-evaluated him on that basis, but a larger number of Democrats are not ready to go so far. Most Democrats say they are satisfied with how he has addressed the allegations and do not support his immediate resignation.Perhaps the hesitancy of some New York Democrats to believe the allegations against Mr. Cuomo simply reflects their dispassionate read of the evidence. It might also be a reflection of the loyalty of the state’s rank-and-file Democratic voters to Mr. Cuomo.After all, many more registered Republicans believe the allegations against Mr. Cuomo than registered Democrats, a powerful reminder of the role of partisanship in shaping public opinion. Liberals, who generally argue that women should be believed when they allege sexual harassment, are the likeliest ideological group to say they do not believe Mr. Cuomo has committed sexual harassment. A majority of conservatives and Republicans, in contrast, believe the allegations.Mr. Cuomo’s resilience is also a reminder that New York Democrats are fairly moderate, despite counting some of the nation’s most famous progressive politicians, like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and a thriving Democratic Socialist left among their ranks. In recent Democratic primaries, New Yorkers backed Hillary Clinton and Mr. Cuomo over idealistic, reformist, good-government progressive challengers.Mr. Cuomo and other establishment-backed Democrats have often won with considerable support from nonwhite voters, especially those who are Black, in New York City, who often hold relatively moderate views on cultural and ideological issues compared with those of white progressives. And of all of the demographic groups surveyed in the Siena poll, Black voters, regardless of party registration, were the likeliest to have a favorable view of Mr. Cuomo or say he has not committed sexual harassment.Mr. Cuomo’s path to winning the general election is straightforward: capitalize on New York’s Democratic lean. The Siena College poll found that registered voters in the state said they preferred a Democrat for governor over a Republican by a 20 percentage point margin, presumably making it quite difficult for any Republican to win the general election.Difficult does not mean impossible. It is not wholly uncommon for Democratic states to elect Republican governors, or vice versa. The three states where President Biden’s performed the strongest — Vermont, Massachusetts and Maryland — all have Republican governors, albeit moderate ones; the Democratic governors of Kansas, Kentucky and Louisiana offer examples on the other side of the political spectrum.Mr. Cuomo’s ratings are weak enough statewide that he could be vulnerable against a strong and moderate Republican challenger, who would probably need to accede to the state’s prevailing cultural views, perhaps even on abortion and Donald Trump’s presidency. Most of the Republican contenders so far do not fit into that category. Many have strong ties to national Republican politics, including several House Republicans and even Andrew Giuliani.There’s still time for a stronger challenger to emerge, but for now it is not easy to identify someone comparable to the three anti-Trump Republicans who currently govern blue states.In the final account, the most powerful force to help Mr. Cuomo overcome allegations of sexual harassment may be the partisan loyalty of Democratic voters in a blue state. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Matthew McConaughey, Texas Governor? Voters Seem to Like the Idea.

      by

      A new poll may put some wind in the actor Matthew McConaughey’s sails as he considers whether to run for governor of Texas.Forty-five percent of the state’s voters said that they would vote for Mr. McConaughey if he were to challenge Gov. Greg Abbott next year, according to the poll, conducted by The Dallas Morning News and the University of Texas, Tyler.An additional 33 percent of voters said they would support the incumbent, while 22 percent said that at this early stage, they would prefer to choose someone else.But such highly theoretical questions can sometimes produce wonky results, especially this far in advance of any actual campaigning. That’s doubly true when the hypothetical involves a figure with name recognition as high as Mr. McConaughey’s, particularly in his home state.The actor has repeatedly flirted with running for governor, though he has not said whether he would run as a Republican or a Democrat. Last month he said he was seriously considering a bid.“I’m looking into now again, what is my leadership role?” he said on a podcast. “Because I do think I have some things to teach and share, and what is my role? What’s my category in my next chapter of life that I’m going into?”His fortunes in the new poll were particularly good among independents, 44 percent of whom said they’d support him and only 18 percent of whom said they would back the governor, a Republican.Yet Mr. Abbott’s job approval rating was healthy, with 50 percent of voters giving him positive marks and 36 percent negative. Fifty-four percent said he had responded well to the state’s power failure crisis, driven by strong support from Republicans; independents tilted away from him here, with 50 percent saying he had handled it badly and 43 percent saying he responded well, the poll found.The survey was conducted from April 6-13 among 1,126 registered Texas voters, using a mixed-mode approach that included live phone interviews as well as online polling through the Dynata database. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Were Lukewarm on Campaign Biden. They Love President Biden.

      by

      Joe Biden never captured the hearts of Democratic voters in the way Barack Obama once did. But now that he is in office, he is drawing nearly universal approval from his party.The old cliché has it that when it comes to picking their presidential candidates, Democrats fall in love. But the party’s primary race last year was hardly a great political romance: Joseph R. Biden Jr. drew less than 21 percent of the Democratic vote in the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and a dismal 8.4 percent in the New Hampshire primary.While Mr. Biden went on to win his party’s nomination, he was never widely seen as capturing the hearts of Democratic voters in the way Barack Obama and Bill Clinton once did. For many of his supporters, he seemed simply like their best chance to defeat a president — Donald J. Trump — who inspired far more passion than he did.Yet in the first few months of his administration, Mr. Biden has garnered almost universal approval from members of his party, according to polls, emerging as a kind of man-for-all-Democrats after an election year riddled with intraparty squabbling.He began his term this winter with an approval rating of 98 percent among Democrats, according to Gallup. This represents a remarkable measure of partisan consensus — outpacing even the strongest moments of Republican unity during the presidency of Mr. Trump, whose political brand depended heavily on the devotion of his G.O.P. base.And as Mr. Biden nears his 100th day in office, most public polls have consistently shown him retaining the approval of more than nine in 10 Democrats nationwide.Pollsters and political observers mostly agree that Mr. Biden’s popularity among members of his party is driven by a combination of their gratitude to him for getting Mr. Trump out of office and their sense that Mr. Biden has refused to compromise on major Democratic priorities.“He has this ability to appeal to all factions of the party, which is no surprise to the centrists, but somewhat of a surprise to the progressives,” Patrick Murray, the director of polling at Monmouth University, said in an interview.During the primary, Mr. Biden was the establishment figure, a Washington centrist in a diverse field that included a number of younger and more progressive rivals. While he won a plurality of Democrats, he struggled to win support from the party’s younger and more liberal voters.But as president, he has been governing much like a progressive without abandoning his longtime public identity as a moderate.“He has found a winning formula, at least for now,” said David Axelrod, who served as a chief strategist to Mr. Obama. “His tone and tenure reassure moderates and his agenda thrills progressives.”To that end, Mr. Biden has avoided taking up liberals’ most politically thorny proposals — like expanding the Supreme Court or canceling $1 trillion in student debt — while sticking to a public posture of bipartisan outreach and measured language. But his policy agenda has given progressives plenty to cheer, including the dozens of executive orders he has signed and the ambitious legislative agenda he has proposed, beginning with the passage of one of the largest economic stimulus packages in American history.Some progressives say the crises facing the country and the urgency of solving them have helped Mr. Biden, who was being evaluated against what Democrats saw as months of inaction by the previous administration.“Democrats were demanding shots in the arms and true economic help from the government,” said Faiz Shakir, who is a political adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders and managed Mr. Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign. “There was incredible unity in the Democratic Party of rising to the moment and acting quickly.”Mr. Shakir pointed to the passing of a popular $1.9 trillion relief package shortly after Mr. Biden took office, a bill he muscled through without any Republican support — opting for Democratic unity over bipartisan compromise. The president’s embrace of stimulus payments as part of that legislation — a policy that put money in the pockets of 127 million Americans — within weeks of taking office certainly didn’t hurt his standing, Mr. Shakir said.“It just had so many benefits for so many people,” he said.That bill was especially well liked within Mr. Biden’s party: A Quinnipiac University poll conducted just before it passed found that it enjoyed support from 97 percent of Democrats. As a result, the president has been able to unify his party around major initiatives tied to liberal investments in the social safety net.“The Democratic Party has shifted itself,” Mr. Murray said. “It has become more progressive, and you even have centrists who are on board with a few things that they wouldn’t have been happy with a few years ago.”But Mr. Biden may also be benefiting from some forms of progress that were not entirely of his own making. Millions of Americans are being vaccinated daily, moving the country closer to emerging from the coronavirus pandemic. As the United States moves slowly but steadily toward herd immunity, forecasters anticipate a quickly expanding economy, with even Republicans like Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, predicting a financial boom that could last into 2023.Mr. Biden took steps to hasten virus vaccine production, but some of his political success on that front can be attributed to savvy public positioning. By tamping down expectations for vaccine distribution during his first weeks in office, when Mr. Biden beat his own expectations, his team conjured an image of a White House working overtime to leave the efforts of the previous administration in the dust.Though Mr. Trump laid the groundwork for widespread vaccine production with his Operation Warp Speed program, it is Mr. Biden who may be reaping the political benefit from that push — especially within his own party.Indeed, Democrats’ antipathy for Mr. Trump has a lot to do with their fondness for the new president, said Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster. “Democrats utterly detested Donald Trump and Joe Biden saved them from Donald Trump, and so they love him,” Mr. Ayres said. “If you look at the overall job approval, not just among Democrats, Biden’s job approval is the inverse of Donald Trump’s.”Mr. Biden is hardly the first president to enjoy broad support from his party upon taking office. It is typical for commanders in chief to start their first term with a broadly positive approval rating, as Mr. Biden did, although that is always subject to the pull of gravity after the first few weeks are over.But in the history of Gallup polling going back to the mid-20th century, Mr. Biden is the first president to have started his term with the approval of more than 90 percent of partisans.To a degree, this reflects the fact that as the two major parties have grown more entrenched in their ideological identities, voters at the center have become slightly less likely to identify with either one. As a result, there has been a recent uptick in the share of Americans calling themselves political independents.“The partisan tribalism is such that you really are, in many ways, a true believer if you’re still going to call yourself a Democrat or a Republican,” Mr. Murray said. “What you’re left behind with is people who are going to be more staunch in their partisanship.”Just a few decades ago, a president with sky-high approval within his party would also be relatively popular outside it. But Mr. Biden’s approval rating, though positive over all, remains low among Republicans and stuck in the low-to-mid-50s among independents.“If you go back a generation and somebody has a 95 percent approval rating within their own party, that probably means they have about 50 percent approval among voters in the other party,” Mr. Murray said. “We don’t have that. We have this partisan split. His overall job rating is just above 50 percent. It’s still positive, but we would expect in former days that that would translate to a 60-percent approval rating.” More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Can These Democratic Pollsters Figure Out What Went Wrong?

      by

      Five competing Democratic polling firms put their heads (and their data) together about 2020.Everybody agrees the polls missed the mark in 2020, as they had four years earlier. But nobody’s certain why.In search of answers, five competing Democratic polling firms have decided to put their heads (and their data) together, forming a group that will undertake a major effort to figure out what went wrong in 2020 — and how the polling industry can adjust.The team released a memo today announcing the project and offering some preliminary findings that seek to address why polls again underestimated support for Donald Trump. But over all, the message was one of openness and uncertainty. The big takeaway: Things need to change, including the very nature of how polls are conducted.Innovation aheadThe authors wrote that their analysis thus far had pushed them toward thinking that pollsters must take a boldly innovative approach when mapping out the road ahead.“We know we have to explore all possibilities,” Fred Yang of Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group, one of the five firms involved in the study, said in an interview today.That will probably mean embracing some tools that had been considered too untested for mainstream public polling: Officially, the survey-research community still considers live-interview phone calls to be the gold standard, but there is growing evidence that innovative methods, like sending respondents text messages that prompt them to respond to a survey online, could become essential.And it could also mean going back to some methods that have become less common in recent decades, including conducting polls via door-to-door interviews, or paying respondents to participate.“We are going to put every solution, no matter how difficult, on the table,” the memo read.The consortium of Democratic firms plans to release a fuller report this year; so will a number of traditional survey-research institutions. The American Association for Public Opinion Research, which undertook a widely discussed post-mortem analysis in 2016, is already at work on another. AAPOR is a bastion of polling traditionalism, but if the Democratic groups’ preliminary report is any indication, even the association’s coming analysis might acknowledge that the industry should embrace more experimental approaches to data collection.In a separate analysis released late last month, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight found that traditional, live-interview phone polls weren’t meaningfully more accurate than others. In fact, out of dozens of polling firms analyzed, none of those with the lowest average error had exclusively used live-interview phone calls (and some hadn’t used them at all). Two of the three most accurate firms were Republican-aligned companies that are held in suspicion by most leaders in the social-science world, partly because they use methods that have long been considered suspect — including robo-calling, as well as newer techniques like contacting respondents via text message.What drove polling errorThe Democratic firms’ memo said polls had slightly missed the mark when determining the makeup of the electorate last year. This means they misunderstood, to some degree, who was likely to vote and who wasn’t: a crucial “X” factor in pre-election polling.Among so-called low-propensity voters — that is, the ones pollsters consider the least likely to turn out — Republicans proved four times as likely as Democrats to actually end up casting a ballot in November. This can be taken as another indication of how effective Donald Trump was at expanding the Republican electorate, and pollsters’ difficulties accounting for that, particularly among white voters without college degrees and those in rural areas.Tellingly, the researchers found that voters who considered Trump “presidential” were underrepresented in polls.But a greater source of concern was so-called measurement error. That’s a fancy way of saying polls have had trouble figuring out what percentage of people in certain demographic groups plan to vote for one candidate over the other.The report proposed some explanations for why there was significant measurement error in 2020 pre-election polling, and it landed on two big potential culprits. One was the higher prevalence of anti-institutional views (sometimes referred to as “social distrust”) among Trump supporters, meaning those voters would be less willing to respond to official surveys. The second explanation was the lower incidence of pandemic-related fears among Trump voters, meaning they were more likely than Biden voters to be willing to turn out to vote.“What we have settled on is the idea there is something systematically different about the people we reached, and the people we did not,” the report’s authors wrote. “This problem appears to have been amplified when Trump was on the ballot, and it is these particular voters who Trump activated that did not participate in polls.”New York Times PodcastsThe Improvement Association: A true story about election fraudWhy do election fraud allegations live on, even after they’ve been debunked? In our new audio series with Serial Productions, we went to one rural county to try to find out. Listen to the first episode now.On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More