Cygnal December 2024 National Voter Trends (NVT) Survey · Dec 9–11, 2024 · US national
Methodology
- Pollster
- Cygnal partisan_r
- Sponsor
- Cygnal
- Fielded
- Dec 9–11, 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
- ±2.52%
- Weighting
- not disclosed
- Geography
- US national
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. In scope only because the item names 'transgender' explicitly in its example list; it is a salience item, not an attitude item toward trans people.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
whether cultural/social issues (transgender named among the examples) or economic issues drove the 2024 presidential vote
When deciding who to vote for in the 2024 presidential election, which was more important to you: cultural and social issues (e.g. immigration, free speech, abortion, transgender) or economic issues (e.g. jobs, inflation, cost of living, taxes)?
Both were equally important
39.1%
Economic issues were far more important
25.9%
Cultural and social issues were far more important
13.4%
Economic issues were somewhat more important
9.5%
Cultural and social issues were somewhat more important
6.9%
Neither played an important role in my decision
3.7%
Unsure
1.6%
Cultural issues (total) 20.2%Economic issues (total) 35.4%
Wording notes: 'transgender' appears as a bare noun in an example list rather than as a policy | transgender is grouped with immigration, free speech and abortion, which flattens very different salience levels
neutral — symmetric five-point forced choice with an explicit equal-weight midpoint; example lists on both sides are of comparable length
Subgroup figures (13)