Cygnal Survey of Likely General Election Voters - National House Battleground Districts · May 6–8, 2024 · US national - 39 U.S. House battleground districts
Methodology
- Pollster
- Cygnal partisan_r
- Sponsor
- Cygnal
- Fielded
- May 6–8, 2024
- Population
- likely voters
- Sample size
- 1,500
- Sample frame
- unknown
- Mode
- not disclosed in the public deck; Cygnal markets its standard product as 'Multi-Mode Polling' but the deck carries no methodology statement
- Margin of error
- ±2.45%
- Weighting
- not disclosed
- Geography
- US national - 39 U.S. House battleground districts
Sources
Verification note. Question wording, total and full crosstab read directly off the public Cygnal deck PDF (chart slide rendered to image and read; the deck's figures are drawn as chart graphics, not selectable text). Field dates, n and MoE from the deck cover slide. Cygnal publishes no methodology statement with these decks: mode, sample frame, weighting and response rate are all undisclosed. Both Title IX items were fielded in the same battery. The 40-point gap between them (27.4% vs 67.4% agreeing with the trans-inclusive and the trans-exclusive proposition respectively) is a within-poll framing artifact and is the reason both are recorded here.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
whether Title IX should cover transgender women ('biological men who identify as women')
As you may know, Title IX is a landmark federal civil rights law enacted in the 1970s that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and covers a wide range of areas including academic admissions, athletics, sexual harassment and employment. For decades, Title IX has been vital in opening doors for generations of women and girls.
The Biden Administration recently changed Title IX rules without a vote of Congress. Their updated rules require colleges and universities to grant biological men who identify as women the same rights as biological women. Knowing this, do you agree or disagree that Title IX should apply to biological men who identify as women?
Wording notes: preamble frames Title IX as having 'been vital in opening doors for generations of women and girls' before the trans item, priming a zero-sum reading | 'biological men who identify as women' is the restrictive-side term of art and is the only descriptor offered | 'without a vote of Congress' characterizes the rule change as procedurally illegitimate | no counter-argument offered
tilts_restrictive — the preamble supplies a one-sided sympathetic frame for cisgender women only, the stem editorializes that the rule was made 'without a vote of Congress', and the only available description of trans women is 'biological men who identify as women' - each pushes toward disagreement
Subgroup figures (21)
party
ideology
gender
age
2024_vote
state laws barring trans women from female sports and women's bathrooms
Some states are passing laws that prohibit biological men from participating in female sports or using women's bathrooms. Some critics say that biological men who identify as women should have the same non-discrimination protections from Title IX that biological women receive. Knowing this, do you agree or disagree that states should be able to pass laws that maintain protections for solely for biological women?
Wording notes: double-barreled: bundles sports and bathrooms into one item | the opposing view is attributed to unnamed 'critics' while the restrictive view is stated in the pollster's own voice as 'maintain[ing] protections' | 'biological men' used for trans women throughout | contains a typographical error ('for solely for') in the fielded wording
tilts_restrictive — the restrictive position is framed as 'maintaining protections' - an unopposable good - while the affirming position is demoted to something 'some critics say'; combining sports and bathrooms also prevents respondents who split on the two from answering accurately
Subgroup figures (21)
party
ideology
gender
age
2024_vote
