online opt-in

Morning Consult

Morning Consult/POLITICO National Tracking Poll #2006102 · Jun 19–21, 2020 · US national

Methodology

Pollster
Morning Consult commercial
Sponsor
Morning Consult
Commissioned by
POLITICO
Fielded
Jun 19–21, 2020
Population
registered voters
Sample size
1,988
Sample frame
online opt-in
Panel
Morning Consult online panel
Mode
online - self-administered web survey of the Morning Consult online panel
Margin of error
plus or minus 2 percentage points
Weighting
weighted to approximate a target sample of registered voters based on age, race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, and region
Geography
US national

Sources

Verification note. Wording, topline and PID crosstabs read directly from Table POL19_2 of the crosstabulation PDF, fielded four days after the Supreme Court decided Bostock v. Clayton County. The companion DACA item (POL19_1) and the awareness item (POL18_2) are not transcribed. The Morning Consult article reports the combined support figure as 71%, which matches 52% strongly plus 19% somewhat here.

Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.

Questions asked (1)

Nondiscrimination4-point scalein a trend series
support for the Supreme Court's Bostock ruling on workplace discrimination

As you may know, this week the Supreme Court made several rulings. Do you support or oppose each of the Supreme Court's recent rulings?

As you may know, this week the Supreme Court made several rulings. Do you support or oppose each of the Supreme Court's recent rulings? The Supreme Court banning workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity

Support 71%14% Oppose

Wording notes: bundles sexual orientation with gender identity, so trans-specific support cannot be isolated | describes the holding as 'banning workplace discrimination', a formulation few respondents would reject | attributing the policy to the Supreme Court adds an institutional-legitimacy cue

tilts_affirming — 'banning workplace discrimination' is a valence-positive framing of the holding; a version naming the burden on employers would likely score lower. The item is nonetheless in scope because gender identity is named explicitly

Subgroup figures (15)

party

GroupStrongly supportSomewhat supportSomewhat opposeStrongly opposeDon't know / No opinion
Democrat (no lean)71%12%5%3%9%
Independent (no lean)51%17%6%7%20%
Republican (no lean)28%29%11%13%19%

Every figure on this page is transcribed from the source linked above. How to read this data →