Trafalgar Group / Convention of States Action Nationwide Issues Survey - Candidate Support · Oct 25–30, 2022 · US national
Methodology
- Pollster
- Trafalgar Group partisan_r
- Sponsor
- Convention of States Action
- Commissioned by
- Convention of States Action
- Fielded
- Oct 25–30, 2022
- Population
- likely voters
- Sample size
- 1,080
- Sample frame
- unknown
- Mode
- not stated in the report beyond a link to TheTrafalgarGroup.org/Polling-Methodology; Trafalgar's published method is a multi-mode blend of live caller, integrated voice response, text, email and online panel
- Margin of error
- ±2.9%
- Weighting
- not disclosed in the report
- Geography
- US national
Sources
Verification note. Wording, total and party crosstab transcribed from the Trafalgar/Convention of States Action full report PDF. Column alignment after PDF text extraction was verified arithmetically: in every party column the two 'not likely' components sum to the summary-page 'Not Likely' net and the two 'likely' components sum to the 'Likely' net (e.g. Democrat 26.2+16.5=42.7 and 28.2+29.1=57.3). The report's age, gender and ethnicity tables did not survive text extraction in a form that could be verified and are therefore NOT recorded. Response rate 1.08%, MoE 2.9%, 95% confidence; no mode mix or weighting disclosed.
Figures below are transcribed from these documents. Where they disagree with the source, the source governs.
vote likelihood for a candidate supporting gender-affirming care for minors
Are you more or less likely to vote for a candidate in the 2022 midterms elections who supports allowing underage minors to use puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and undergo sex-change surgeries?
Not likely at all
63.3%
Very likely
14.1%
Somewhat more likely
13.3%
Somewhat less likely
9.4%
Not Likely (net) 72.7%Likely (net) 27.4%
Wording notes: stacks three interventions of very different profiles - puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries - into one clause | 'sex-change surgeries' rather than any clinical term | 'allowing underage minors' omits parents and physicians entirely, implying the candidate would let children decide alone | no neutral or 'no difference' option, so respondents with no view must pick a direction | asked in the closing days of a midterm campaign by a group actively campaigning on the issue
loaded_terms — this is an advocacy message-test rather than an opinion measure: the candidate position is described in the sponsor's own campaign language, the treatment stack is maximally alarming, the decision-makers are erased, and no neutral option exists - all of which drive the 72.7% 'not likely' headline the sponsor then publicized
Subgroup figures (18)
