The Continued Relevance of Telephone Polling

As the primary season concludes and Labor Day approaches, marking the traditional start of the general election campaign, it is time to address the many questions we have received regarding our updated polling methodology this year.

Can you please make some comments about contact method? What is that going to look like? — Jim Clifton, chairman, Gallup

The New York Times/Siena Poll has historically relied on telephone surveys, though we have experimented with various voter contact methods over recent years. These approaches have included text messaging (occasionally with financial incentives), mail surveys (with incentives), and online panels of recruited respondents. Ultimately, the Times/Siena poll remains a telephone survey.

Although telephone surveys are costly, they remain significantly faster and less expensive than mail surveys with high incentives. Furthermore, the phone continues to reach a more demographically representative population—measured by educational attainment and recent voting records—than supplementing calls with text-message links or online panels.

What sustains the viability of phone polling? Its primary advantage is a high cooperation rate. While overall response rates are low—largely because most individuals do not answer unknown numbers—a significant portion of those who do answer choose to participate, at roughly 15 percent.

Conversely, only a minuscule fraction of those who receive a text invitation choose to participate, and these respondents appear to be fervent political enthusiasts who do not represent the broader population (this may explain why recent polls overestimated the support of progressive candidates). A less politically engaged demographic is far more likely to agree to a phone survey—provided they answer the call.

I have detailed several other methodological adjustments in newsletters this year, which can be read here:

Have we ever overestimated Republicans?

Thank you for the article discussing revisions to your polling methodology. I have a question. Has The Times ever overestimated support for a Republican? If so, when? — Bob Nazarian

The last instance of our polls overestimating Republican support occurred during the 2018 midterms. Specifically, we overestimated Republican support in states and districts with significant Hispanic populations, where voter turnout surged compared to the 2014 election.

Making sense of Michigan voting groups

Following Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s weak performance among Black and rural white working-class voters in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, some readers questioned whether this might portend poorly for his prospects among those same demographics in the general election:

Are you suggesting that those groups [Black, white working class] will stay home in November, or will they vote Democrat like most progressives do for moderate candidates? — Lawrence S. White

While Dr. El-Sayed risks underperforming in the general election, this does not necessarily mean he will underperform among the groups that opposed him in the primary. After all, most Democratic primary voters are reliable partisans who likely favored both candidates, even if many preferred Haley Stevens.

Should Dr. El-Sayed underperform, it will primarily be among persuadable voters who likely skipped the Democratic primary. To the extent he struggles among Democratic primary voters, it will likely be among relatively moderate individuals.

Is Republicans’ money edge actually important?

My question is based on reporting that Republicans have a large cash advantage going into the midterms and that Trump is very unpopular: To what extent, if any, will the cash advantage overcome the unpopularity and Democratic enthusiasm? — David McManus

The G.O.P.’s financial advantage is notable, but it is unlikely to determine the overall outcome of the midterms or overcome the Democrats’ structural disadvantage as the out-of-party in a midterm during a presidency with an approval rating in the 30s. The Democrats possess sufficient resources to compete in the most critical states and districts.

The G.O.P.’s funding will prove most beneficial on the periphery of the battleground. It should help solidify Republican-leaning districts where Democrats might otherwise leverage a financial advantage to defeat underprepared Republican challengers.

Can an independent win in Nebraska?

What is the likelihood of the independent Dan Osborn defeating Pete Ricketts? John Thomsen

There is strong reason to believe Mr. Osborn will be highly competitive in the Nebraska Senate race. In 2024, he lost to a different Republican incumbent, Senator Deb Fischer, by only seven percentage points. In today’s more favorable political environment, he would be expected to perform even better against Senator Ricketts (though the Democratic nominee has since withdrawn from the race).

Whether this renders the race a tossup is more difficult to determine. If Mr. Osborn were a typical Democrat, it would be straightforward to note the national political environment has shifted roughly seven points toward Democrats, thereby assuming Nebraska is now a tossup.

The complication is that a more favorable national environment for Democrats does not clearly benefit Mr. Osborn as much as it would a typical Democrat, just as a hostile national environment in 2024 may not have harmed him as much as other Democrats. Consequently, the safest assessment is that the race still leans Republican, albeit highly competitive.

Unfortunately, there has been only one poll in recent months, and it was sponsored by Mr. Osborn’s campaign.

Source link