CBS News/New York Times Monthly Poll #4, January 1999 (ICPSR 2720)
Principal Investigator(s): CBS News/The New York Times
This poll, fielded January 30-February 1, 1999, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President Bill Clinton, the United States Congress, Vice President Al Gore, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican and Democratic parties. Respondents were next asked a series of questions comparing the two main political parties, including which party had better ideas for both solving the nation's current problems and for leading the country into the 21st century, as well as which party was better at upholding traditional family values. Opinions were also elicited as to which party was the more likely to make the right decisions about Social Security, to improve education and the health care system, and to reduce taxes and crime. Respondents were also asked how they would recommend that Congress use the budget surplus projected over the coming years, including cutting taxes, paying down the national debt, and preserving programs like Medicare and Social Security. Particular emphasis was given in this poll to the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton. Respondents were queried as to how closely they were following the news of the trial, whether they approved of the Senate's handling of the matter, and what their expectations were for the length of the trial. Opinions were elicited on the need for witness testimony, whether President Clinton's actions were serious enough to warrant removal from office, and the constitutional necessity of a final Senate vote. Other questions focused on each political party's role in the impeachment matter, whether the parties were working in a partisan manner, whether the parties' actions would help or hurt their respective images and prospects in the 2000 election, and whether House or Senate members of each party handled themselves more responsibly. Respondents were also asked whether they had learned anything new from the trial, whether the Senate should take into account public opinion when making their decisions, how the respondent wanted his or her senator to vote, and whether the respondents cared about the outcome. Finally, respondents were asked for their predictions as to whether President Clinton would be removed from office and, if not, whether he could still remain effective as president. Attention was also directed toward the Republican party, in terms of whether it was out of touch with the American people--or even rank and file Republicans--on the impeachment matter, and whether the party was too conservative. Background information on respondents includes age, race, sex, education, religion, marital status, political party, political orientation, recent voting history, and family income.
These data are freely available.
CBS News/The New York Times. CBS News/New York Times Monthly Poll #4, January 1999 . ICPSR02720-v3. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-04-29. doi:10.3886/ICPSR02720.v3
Persistent URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02720.v3
Scope of Study
Subject Terms: Clinton, Bill, congressional hearings, congressional voting, crime, Democratic Party (USA), education, families, federal budget surplus, Gore, Al, health care, Hyde, Henry, impeachment, Lewinsky scandal, Lott, Trent, Medicare, national debt, presidency, presidential performance, public opinion, Republican Party (USA), Social Security, Starr, Kenneth, tax cuts, United States Congress, United States House of Representatives, United States Senate, values
Geographic Coverage: United States
Data Collection Notes:
(1) 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, hardcopy documentation has been converted to machine-readable form and variables have been recoded to ensure respondents' anonymity. (2) The codebook is provided as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.
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.
Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Created variable labels and/or value labels.
Original ICPSR Release: 1999-10-07
- 2009-04-29 As part of an automated retrofit of some studies in the holdings, ICPSR updated the frequency file for this collection to include the original question text.
- 2009-04-22 As part of an automated retrofit of some studies in the holdings, ICPSR created the full data product suite for this collection. Note that 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 also been added.
Use any of the notification links to add this study to your RSS feed; you will then receive notification if the study is substantively updated.
- Citations exports are provided above.
Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)
If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.