Davis’s support in NC-01 divides by race, 85% among Black voters and 32% among White voters.

186 likely voters · margin of error ±6.2 points

Exploratory subgroup comparison selected after examining the October polls; pointwise intervals are not adjusted for that search. Black and White groups are non-Hispanic; Hispanic and other race groups are separate and are not shown in this comparison. Race is self-reported in all 38,815 poll-respondent records. Likely voters in the named October state and district polls; not a national sample or forecast. Pooled figures are respondent-proportional descriptive summaries of separate electorates. Each poll’s subgroup weights are normalized to its answered-question n; repeated people remain in record n but their weights are collapsed for Kish effective n. MOEs are approximate pointwise 95% half-widths in percentage points, without adjustment for exploratory multiple comparisons. They do not include all coverage, nonresponse, recall, calibration or selection uncertainty. Wald intervals can extend outside percentage bounds; an observed zero is not a population zero. Unknown and indifferent answers remain in denominators. Fewer than 50 distinct people is suppressed; 50–99 means interpret with caution.

84.9% of Black non-Hispanic likely voters in NC-01 support Don Davis, Democrat (95% margin of error ±6.2 points; n=186, 186 distinct people, effective n=127.7). 2.2% of Black non-Hispanic likely voters in NC-01 support Laurie Buckhout, Republican (95% margin of error ±2.5 points; n=186, 186 distinct people, effective n=127.7). 31.7% of White non-Hispanic likely voters in NC-01 support Don Davis, Democrat (95% margin of error ±3.7 points; n=1,094, 1,094 distinct people, effective n=606.6). 59.6% of White non-Hispanic likely voters in NC-01 support Laurie Buckhout, Republican (95% margin of error ±3.9 points; n=1,094, 1,094 distinct people, effective n=606.6). The featured estimate uses 186 responses from 186 distinct people, with an effective sample size of 127.7. Exploratory subgroup comparison selected after examining the October polls; pointwise intervals are not adjusted for that search. Black and White groups are non-Hispanic; Hispanic and other race groups are separate and are not shown in this comparison. Race is self-reported in all 38,815 poll-respondent records. Likely voters in the named October state and district polls; not a national sample or forecast. Pooled figures are respondent-proportional descriptive summaries of separate electorates. Each poll’s subgroup weights are normalized to its answered-question n; repeated people remain in record n but their weights are collapsed for Kish effective n. MOEs are approximate pointwise 95% half-widths in percentage points, without adjustment for exploratory multiple comparisons. They do not include all coverage, nonresponse, recall, calibration or selection uncertainty. Wald intervals can extend outside percentage bounds; an observed zero is not a population zero. Unknown and indifferent answers remain in denominators. Fewer than 50 distinct people is suppressed; 50–99 means interpret with caution.