DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03374.v3
title: New York Times New York City Poll #2, October 2001
title: Version 3

description: This special topic poll, fielded October 27-31, 2001, was
designed to assess respondents' views regarding the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks on New York City and the upcoming New York
City mayoral election. New York City residents were asked to give
their opinions of New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Reverend Al
Sharpton, as well as their opinions of mayoral candidates Michael
Bloomberg (Republican) and Mark Green (Democrat). Regarding the
mayoral race, respondents were asked how much attention they were
paying to the upcoming election, for whom they would vote, whether
that decision was firm, and whether they would vote for Giuliani if he
were permitted to run for a third term. Regardless of how they
intended to vote, respondents were asked who they thought was going to
win the mayoral election in November 2001. Those queried were asked to
compare the two candidates in terms of experience, political ideology,
leadership qualities, and whether they had spent their campaigns
explaining their platforms or attacking the opposition. Respondents
were asked to identify the long-range issues facing New York City and
to indicate which were the most important. Their views were also
sought on the state of the New York City economy, their level of
satisfaction with the quality of public schools in the city, and
whether the Board of Education should increase teachers' salaries or
hire new teachers. Additional questions regarding the election
included how New York City residents felt about getting a new mayor,
whether Giuliani should leave office as scheduled, extend his current
term by three months, or be allowed to run for office again, whether
the new mayor should have city government experience or bring a fresh
approach to the office, how respondents felt about campaign financing,
and whether Green and/or Fernando Ferrer ran a racially divided
campaign during the Democratic run-off. A series of questions
addressed respondents' reactions to and feelings about the recent
terrorist attacks on the city. Topics covered whether respondents'
daily routines had returned to normal, whether they were concerned
about another terrorist attack on the city, whether they were
concerned about exposure to anthrax, whether there were any places
that they were less comfortable going to, whether there were any
places that they were going to more often, and whether the financial
district should still be concentrated in downtown Manhattan or moved
elsewhere. Opinions were also gathered about the appropriate penalty
for persons convicted of murder and the appropriate penalty for
persons convicted of murder connected with terrorism. Background
information on respondents includes age, gender, political party,
political orientation, voter registration and participation history,
marital status, age of children in household, whether respondents'
children attended private or public school, education, the importance
of religion, religion, race, Hispanic descent, borough of residence,
years in community, and household income.
description: A variation of random-digit dialing using primary sampling
units (PSUs) was employed, consisting of blocks of 100 telephone
numbers identical through the eighth digit and stratified by
geographic region, area code, and size of place. Within households,
respondents were selected using a method developed by Leslie Kish and
modified by Charles Backstrom and Gerald Hursh (see Backstrom and
Hursh, SURVEY RESEARCH. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press,
1963).
description: Datasets: 
DS1: New York Times New York City Poll #2, October 2001
description: Adult population of New York City aged 18 and over having
telephones at home.
description: This collection has not been processed by ICPSR
staff. ICPSR is distributing the data and documentation for this
collection in essentially the same form in which they were
received. When appropriate, documentation has been converted to
Portable Document Format (PDF), data files have been converted to
non-platform-specific formats, and variables have been recoded to
ensure respondents' anonymity.The ASCII data file may have been replaced if the previous version was formatted with multiple records per case. A frequency file, which contains the authoritative column locations, has been added to the collection.