The U.S. presidential election has been held in North Carolina on 57 occasions; this was every election except the first, in 1789, and the 1864 election, when North Carolina was a member of the Confederate States of America. North Carolina has awarded all (or at least a majority) of its electoral votes to the nationwide winning candidate in 38 elections, giving a success rate of 67 percent. The "Tar Heel State" has voted for the Democratic nominee in thirty elections, and the Republican nominee in 15; although eleven of these have come in the past 14 elections. Despite North Carolina voting red in most elections since 1968, it has often been seen as a battleground state, with the four most recent popular votes split by fewer than four points. In the 2020 election, North Carolina was on of the closest results nationwide, with Donald Trump winning the popular vote by a one percent margin. North Carolinians in office Two U.S. presidents were born in North Carolina; the first was James K. Polk, who spent the first seven years of his life in the Waxhaws region, and the second was Andrew Johnson, who was born and raised in Raleigh. Coincidentally, both these men would move to Tennessee, where they would establish political careers before ascending to the presidency. Polk also failed to win the election in his state of birth, while Johnson's election (as Abraham Lincoln's vice presidential nominee) was not contested there. Electoral votes Between 1812 and 1840, North Carolina had 15 electoral votes, however this then decreased to just nine votes by the Reconstruction era, as higher net migration rates in other states saw the saw North Carolina's population grow more slowly than the national average. The allocation then rose to 13 votes in the 1930s, and remained at 13 or 14 until 2004, when it then returned to 15. Historically, the majority of North Carolinians have lived in rural areas, although recent decades have seen the population shift to be come more urban or suburban, and grow due to an influx of migrants from Latin America and South or Southeast Asia. In the 2024 election, North Carolina is expected to gain another electoral vote as its population grows faster than the national average, and higher birth rates among urban and foreign-born populations is likely to increase the Democratic Party's voter base in the state.

The purpose of this study was to examine the causes of gains in Black office-holding in the South over the past two decades, including effects of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on changes in local city election structure, the enfranchisement of Blacks in the South, and the prevention of the dilution of minority votes in terms of enabling Blacks to win local office. The data are longitudinal, gathered at two points in time at the city level. The collection includes eight state-specific data files that contain variables such as type of election system in use at each time period (at-large, single-member district, or mixed), total number of Black council members at each of two time points for each city, total number of council members, 1980 Census city total population, 1980 Census Black city population, and voting age population. Also included is "Table Z," a set of state-specific supplementary tables listing all lawsuits filed between 1965 and 1989 under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, or the Voting Rights Act by private plaintiffs or the Justice Department that challenged at-large elections in municipalities in all eight of the southern states covered in this study, and in counties in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.

The Record of American Democracy (ROAD) data provide election returns, socioeconomic summaries, and demographic details about the American public at unusually low levels of geographic aggregation. The NSF-supported ROAD project spans every state in the country from 1984 through 1990 (including some off-year elections). These data enable research on topics such as electoral behavior, the political characteristics of local community context, electoral geography, the role of minority groups in elections and legislative redistricting, split ticket voting and divided government, and elections under federalism. Another set of files has added to these roughly 30-40 political variables an additional 3,725 variables merged from the 1990 United States Census for 47,327 aggregate units called MCD Groups. The MCD Group is a construct for purposes of this data collection. It is based on a merging of the electoral precincts and Census Minor Civil Divisions (MCDs). An MCD is about the size of a city or town. An MCD Group is smaller than or equal to a county and (except in California) is greater than or equal to the size of an MCD. The MCD Group units completely tile the United States landmass. This particular study contains the files for the State Level MCD Group Data for the state of North Carolina. Documentation and frequently asked questions are available online at the ROAD Website. A downloadable PDF codebook is also available in the files section of this study.

Summary File 4 (SF 4) from the United States 2000 Census contains the sample data, which is the information compiled from the questions asked of a sample of all people and housing units. Population items include basic population totals: urban and rural, households and families, marital status, grandparents as caregivers, language and ability to speak English, ancestry, place of birth, citizenship status, year of entry, migration, place of work, journey to work (commuting), school enrollment and educational attainment, veteran status, disability, employment status, industry, occupation, class of worker, income, and poverty status. Housing items include basic housing totals: urban and rural, number of rooms, number of bedrooms, year moved into unit, household size and occupants per room, units in structure, year structure built, heating fuel, telephone service, plumbing and kitchen facilities, vehicles available, value of home, monthly rent, and shelter costs. In Summary File 4, the sample data are presented in 213 population tables (matrices) and 110 housing tables, identified with "PCT" and "HCT" respectively. Each table is iterated for 336 population groups: the total population, 132 race groups, 78 American Indian and Alaska Native tribe categories (reflecting 39 individual tribes), 39 Hispanic or Latino groups, and 86 ancestry groups. The presentation of SF4 tables for any of the 336 population groups is subject to a population threshold. That is, if there are fewer than 100 people (100-percent count) in a specific population group in a specific geographic area, and there are fewer than 50 unweighted cases, their population and housing characteristics data are not available for that geographic area in SF4. For the ancestry iterations, only the 50 unweighted cases test can be performed. See Appendix H: Characteristic Iterations, for a complete list of characteristic iterations.

Data from field experiments included in manuscript. Manuscript Abstract: Should materials aimed at increasing Latino voter turnout be in English or bilingual? Credible, theoretical arguments can be made both ways: bilingual materials may be more effective if signaling cultural awareness or less effective if seen as pandering. We tested these competing hypotheses with two rounds of randomized field experiments in New Jersey and Virginia in 2015, and North Carolina in 2016. While some GOTV experiments have used bilingual mailers, previous scholarship has not tested whether bilingual mailers are more effective than English-language materials. In the 2015 elections, both treatments increased turnout, and the monolingual English version was more effective at increasing turnout than the bilingual version. These results are replicated in the high salience 2016 election in North Carolina. These results indicate that further research is needed about bilingual communication across political and demographic contexts and about how household composition may condition the effects of bilingual communication.

This study was designed to investigate patterns of political participation among adult Blacks in the South. All interviews were taken in the former confederate states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Along with a Black adults sample (Part 2), a sample of White adults (Part 3) was included as a control group for comparison and a sample of Black students (Part 1) was interviewed with an aim to projecting trends in participation patterns. Variables ascertained voting behavior, political discussion, degree of political organizational activity, participation in demonstrations, and communication with public officials as modes of political participation. Respondents' views on Black leadership, effectiveness of Black organizations, attitudes of White leaders and officials, the effect of electoral laws on Black participation, perceptions of the major parties, party identification, and feelings on race relations were also assessed. The questions asked of both adult samples are identical, and the data may be used for comparative purposes. Demographic data include age, sex, level of education, primary and secondary occupations, religious preference, and family income.

The data contained in this data set were collected by a project entitled "Comparative Welfare States in the 21st Century" directed by David Brady, Evelyne Huber, and John D. Stephens. The project was supported in 2011-13 by grants from the National Science Foundation ("Collaborative Research: Comparative Welfare States: A Public Use Archival Dataset,” SES 1059959 and 1061007). Additional support was provided by the Morehead Alumni Distinguished Professorship and the Margaret and Paul A. Johnston Professorships (funding the Gerhard E. Lenski, Jr. Distinguished Professorship) in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Some further support was provided by Duke University and the WZB Berlin Social Science Center. An earlier version of this dataset was assembled by Evelyne Huber, Charles Ragin, and John Stephens in the 1990s. That project was supported in 1990-92 by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Grant # SES 9108716). Major categories include: wage and salary data, social spending, revenue and welfare state institutions data, labour force and labour institutions data, demographic data, macroeconomic data (Penn world tables, mark 6.1), political variables.

Topics in this survey include direction of the country, the most important problem facing the country, the most important problem facing North Carolina, the most important problem facing your family, ratings of government officials (George W. Bush and John Edwards, local schools and student achievement standards, war in Iraq, grade the University of North Carolina system, reasons for following the news, and reliance on television, radio, newspapers, and the internet for news. Demographic vari ables include respondent's year of birth, educational status, county and region of residence, number of adults age 18 or over living in the household, self-identified political party affiliation, political philosophy, race, marital status, household income, and gender.

This poll, fielded December 13-17, 2007, is a 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. All of the respondents to this poll were registered voters from South Carolina. The poll included an oversample of African Americans respondents, for a total of 444 African American registered voters. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way George W. Bush was handling his job as president. Several questions were asked pertaining to the 2008 presidential campaign and the South Carolina presidential primary including how much attention respondents paid to the presidential campaign, the one issue respondents wanted candidates to discuss during the campaign, whether they thought America was ready to elect a Black president, whether they had attended any campaign events, the likelihood respondents would vote in the primary, whether they would vote in the Democratic or Republican primary, and whether the respondent had ever voted in a primary before. Respondents were asked their opinion of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee. Respondents were queried on which candidate they supported, why they supported that specific candidate, whether they had ever supported a different candidate, which candidate they thought had the best chance of winning, whether they thought the candidates had prepared themselves for the job of president, whether they thought each candidate shared the same values of most people in South Carolina, which candidate they thought would bring change to the way things are done in Washington, and which candidate they thought cared most about the needs and problems of Black people. Respondents were also asked which candidate came closest to their own view on illegal immigration, how important it was that a candidate shared their religious beliefs, whether they would vote for a candidate that did not share their views on social issues, and whether they would vote for a candidate that was of a different race, religion, and gender than their own. Questions about the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton addressed the issues of whether Oprah Winfrey's involvement in Obama's campaign made respondents more likely to support Obama, and whether Bill Clinton's involvement in Hillary Clinton's campaign made respondents more likely to support Hillary Clinton. Information was also collected on whether the respondent considered him or herself to be a born-again Christian, whether there were any labor union members in the household, and whether the respondent or any member of the respondent's family served in the armed forces in Iraq. Additional topics in this poll included illegal immigration, Social Security, United States involvement in Iraq, terrorism, and abortion. Demographic information includes sex, age, race, education level, household income, marital status, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), political party affiliation, political philosophy, voter registration status and participation history, the presence of children under 18, and labor union member status.

Abstract (en): Election data for 50 states and the District of Columbia were collected through interviews conducted with voters as they left their polling places on election day, November 4, 2008. Part 1, National Data, contains data collected from a national sample. National sample respondents were asked a series of questions about their electoral choices, the issues surrounding the elections, and the factors that influenced their decisions. Questions focused on the direction of the country, national security, terrorism, the war in Iraq, the state and future of the nation's economy, gay marriage, and the George W. Bush presidency. Demographic variables of national respondents cover age, race, gender, Hispanic descent, sexual orientation, age of children in household, marital status, political party, political orientation, employment status, education, religion, sexual orientation, and family income. Parts 2-52 contain data collected from each state and District of Columbia surveys. Respondents were asked for their opinions of Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain, Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, and the United States Congress, as well as for their vote choices in the relevant gubernatorial, senatorial, and congressional elections. Those queried were also asked their opinions of the candidates' spouses, Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama. Demographic variables of individual state respondents cover age, race, gender, education, voter participation history, political party, political orientation, sexual orientation, and family income. Telephone interviews were the only type of interview conducted in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. Telephone interviews were also used to poll absentee voters in Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. National: A sample of exit poll precincts was drawn from each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A subsample of these precincts was selected to form the national sample. The national survey was administered in a total of 300 sample exit poll precincts. Respondents in the national precincts were given one of four versions of the national questionnaire. The four versions were interleaved on pads that were handed out to respondents. Responses to the four versions are combined into one dataset. All versions have questions in common as well as questions unique to each version. State Data: As mentioned above, a sample of exit poll precincts was drawn in each state. A subsample of these precincts was selected to form the national sample. The remaining precincts in each state made up the state sample and were given questionnaires specific to that state. Because the national questionnaire has several items in common with the state questionnaire, national respondents are included in the state exit poll dataset for these common questions. To determine which questions are on the national questionnaire, simply crosstab each question by QTYPE (found in column 13 of the ascii dataset), indicating whether the respondent completed the state or national survey. If the corresponding item did not appear on that respondent's version of the questionnaire, it was coded as system missing in the SPSS file and will appear as a blank in the ascii dataset. Remember, as noted above, some questions on the national survey appear on multiple versions of the national and some do not. Note that in 2008 all respondents in California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York answered one version of the national questionnaires. The exit poll results are weighted to reflect the complexity of the sampling design. That is, the weighting takes into account the different probabilities of selecting a precinct and of selecting a voter within each precinct. For example, minority precincts that were selected at a higher rate receive a smaller weight than other precincts of the same size. An adjustment is made for voters who were missed or refused to be interviewed, which is based on their observed age, race, and gender. Respondents are also weighted based upon the size and distribution of the final tabulated vote within geographic regions of the state or of the nation. Voters casting a ballot in the 2008 United States general election. The samples were selected in two stages. First, a probability sample of voting precincts within each state was selected that represents the di...

The 1860 election cemented the Republican Party's position as one of the two major parties in U.S. politics, along with the already-established Democratic Party. Since this time, all U.S. presidents have been affiliated with these two parties, and their candidates have generally performed the best in each presidential election. In spite of this two-party dominance, there have always been third-party or independent candidates running on the ballot, either on a nationwide, regional or state level. No third-party candidate has ever won a U.S. election, although there have been several occasions where they have carried states or split the vote with major party candidates. Today, the largest third-party in U.S. politics is the Libertarian Party, who are considered to be socially liberal, but economically conservative; in the 2016 election, their nominee, Gary Johnson, secured just over three percent of the popular vote, while their latest candidate, Jo Jorgenson, received just over one percent of the vote in the 2020 election.

Theodore Roosevelt The most successful third-party nominee was Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election, who was the only third-party candidate to come second in a U.S. election. The former president had become disillusioned with his successor's growing conservatism, and challenged the incumbent President Taft for the Republican nomination in 1912. Roosevelt proved to be the most popular candidate in the primaries, however Taft had already secured enough Republican delegates in the south to seal the nomination. Roosevelt then used this split in the Republican Party to form his own, Progressive Party, and challenged both major party candidates for the presidency (even taking a bullet in the process). In the end, Roosevelt carried six states, and won over 27 percent of the popular vote, while Taft carried just two states with 23 percent of the vote; this split in the Republican Party allowed the Democratic nominee, Woodrow Wilson, to win 82 percent of the electoral votes despite only winning 42 percent of the popular vote.

Other notable performances The last third-party candidate to win electoral votes was George Wallace* in the 1968 election. The Democratic Party had been the most popular party in the south since before the Civil War, however their increasingly progressive policies in the civil rights era alienated many of their southern voters. Wallace ran on a white supremacist and pro-segregationist platform and won the popular vote in five states. This was a similar story to that of Storm Thurmond, twenty years earlier.

In the 1992 election, Independent candidate Ross Perot received almost one fifth of the popular vote. Although he did not win any electoral votes, Perot split the vote so much that he prevented either Clinton or Bush Sr. from winning a majority in any state except Arkansas (Clinton's home state). Perot ran again in 1996, but with less than half the share of votes he received four years previously; subsequent studies and polls have shown that Perot took an equal number of votes from both of the major party candidates in each election.

Southerners tend to slip through the cracks between state surveys, which are unreliable for generalizing to the region, on the one hand, and national sample surveys, which usually contain too few Southerners to allow detailed examination, on the other. Moreover, few surveys routinely include questions specifically about the South.

To remedy this situation, the Institute for Research in Social Science and the Center for the Study of the American South sponsor a Southern regional survey, called the Southern Focus Poll. Respondents in both the South and Non-South are asked questions about: political preference; religion; demographic characteristics; the 1996 Olympics; Atlanta; the effectiveness of various government agencies; defining characteristics of the South; food.

All of the data sets from the Southern Focus Polls archived here are generously made available by the "https://odum.unc.edu/" Target="_blank">Odum Institute for Research in Social Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (IRSS).

Southerners tend to slip through the cracks between state surveys, which are unreliable for generalizing to the region, on the one hand, and national sample surveys, which usually contain too few Southerners to allow detailed examination, on the other. Moreover, few surveys routinely include questions specifically about the South.

To remedy this situation, the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science and the Center for the Study of the American South sponsor a Southern regional survey, called the Southern Focus Poll. Respondents in both the South and Non-South are asked questions about: political preference; religion; demographic characteristics; the 1996 Olympics; Atlanta; the effectiveness of various government agencies; defining characteristics of the South; food.

All of the data sets from the Southern Focus Polls archived here are generously made available by the "https://odum.unc.edu/" Target="_blank">Odum Institute for Research in Social Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (IRSS).

This special topic poll, fielded January 23-24, 2008, re-interviewed 163 South Carolina registered voters first surveyed December 13-17, 2007, and included an oversample of African Americans. The dataset includes their responses to call-back questions as well as to selected questions in the original poll, CBS NEWS/NEW YORK TIMES SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY POLL, DECEMBER 2007 (ICPSR 24364), which queried South Carolina voters on George W. Bush's presidency, the upcoming 2008 presidential campaign and South Carolina presidential primary, whether they had ever voted in a primary, their opinions of the Democratic presidential nominees, and the likelihood that they would vote for a presidential candidate of a different race and gender than their own. In the call-back poll conducted a few days prior to the South Carolina Democratic primary on January 26, 2008, voters were re-interviewed about how much attention they were paying to the 2008 presidential race, the likelihood that they would vote in the upcoming Democratic presidential primary, if they had changed their choice of candidate since the last survey and why, the importance of the results of other state's primaries in their vote, and their opinions of Democratic presidential nominees Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Questions were also posed regarding Bill Clinton's involvement in Hillary Clinton's campaign and whether America was ready to elect a president who was Black or a woman. Respondents who already voted in South Carolina's Republican primary on January 19, 2008, were asked for whom they had voted. Demographic information includes sex, age, race, education level, household income, marital status, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), political party affiliation, political philosophy, voter registration status and participation history, labor union membership, the presence of children under 18, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, whether respondents considered themselves to be born-again Christians, and whether any household member had served in the armed forces in Iraq.

The Jury and Democracy Project aims to understand the impact that jury service has on citizens. Until recently, no direct empirical evidence regarding the link between jury service and public engagement existed. The Jury and Democracy Project has produced such data. This study consists of two datasets. Part 1, the National Jury Archival Data, consists of a merger of jury and voting records from 1994-2004 in Boulder County (Colorado), Cumberland and Swain Counties (North Carolina), Douglas County (Nebraska), El Paso County (Texas), Orleans Parish (Louisiana), Summit County (Ohio), and Thurston County (Washington). Part 1 includes information regarding seriousness and type of charges, duration of trial and trial information, county and juror information, juror role and voter information, and basic demographic information such as sex, age, political affiliation, and race. Part 2, the King County Survey Data, includes three waves of panel survey data collected from Washington state's King County Court and the Seattle Municipal Courthouse during 2004-2005. In Wave 1 all jurors in King County Court and Seattle Municipal Courthouse received the same survey which collected data on pre-service attitudes, demographics, and past jury duty service and behavior characteristics. Wave 2 consisted of two surveys: (1) King County Court jurors were surveyed on jury duty service experience and treatment, as well as jury selection, court and government efficacy, and citizen responsibility; (2) Seattle Municipal Courthouse jurors were surveyed on the same variables as the King County juror survey, as well as jury deliberation issues. Wave 3 also consisted of two surveys: (1) King County and Seattle Municipal Court jurors were surveyed on their involvement in politics and public affairs, participation in the local community, reflections on jury service, and political views; (2) an additional Wave 3 survey was given to a control replacement sample, which collected data on politics and public life, as well as involvement in politics and public affairs, participation in the local community, the political process, jury service, and demographic characteristics such as sex, race, age, and education level.

This dataset contains public polling responses for individuals in five Southern United States school districts: Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC; Rock Hill, SC; Louisville, KY; Nashville, TN; and Raleigh, NC in 2015. The purpose of the study was to explore attitudes towards desegregation and re-segregation across five Southern school districts with differing histories regarding segregation. This current dataset also builds upon past data the authors had collected on a similar topic in Wake County in 2011. The dataset contains information on beliefs regarding the importance of diverse schools and classrooms, the importance of neighborhood schools, the challenges parents face when dealing with reassignments, the dangers to children that reassignments include, and the uncertainty families face during this process. This data also contains information on demographic characteristics and sociopolitical characteristics such as sex, age, race, marital status, education, commute time, length of residence, attitudes towards MLK, political party, the presence of school age children, income, and social purpose politics.

This data collection contains information gathered in a study that explored political attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors within and among states and regions, and across the United States as a whole, in 1968, just after the presidential, gubernatorial, and United States senatorial elections. To facilitate comparisons within and among states, separate surveys were conducted in 13 states, chosen to represent the largest states and a variety of regions: Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Texas. The other 35 contiguous states and the District of Columbia were represented by an additional sample. Respondents were asked about their national and state party identification, political ideology, and perceptions of the ideological positions of the presidential candidates and the Democratic and Republican parties. Perceptions of existing problems, citizen duties, and political efficacy were also explored, along with levels of confidence in the federal and state governments. Respondents rated the potential "excellence as President" of a dozen 1968 presidential contenders, and they rated the job performance of the United States Congress, state legislatures, President Lyndon Johnson, state governors, and the major political parties. Respondents' positive and negative images of the 1968 gubernatorial and senatorial candidates, past voting behavior, participation and party contact in the 1968 election campaign, and 1968 voting behavior (from president down the ballot, including candidate choice in gubernatorial and senatorial primaries) were also elicited. Demographic data include age, sex, race, level of education, religion, church attendance, marital status, employment status, occupation, and family income.

Summary File 2 contains 100-percent United States decennial Census data, which is the information compiled from the questions asked of all people and about every housing unit. Population items include sex, age, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household relationship, and group quarters occupancy. Housing items include occupancy status, vacancy status, and tenure (owner-occupied or renter- occupied). The 100-percent data are presented in 36 population tables ("PCT") and 11 housing tables ("HCT") down to the census tract level. Each table is iterated for 250 population groups: the total population, 132 race groups, 78 American Indian and Alaska Native tribe categories (reflecting 39 individual tribes), and 39 Hispanic or Latino groups. The presentation of tables for any of the 250 population groups is subject to a population threshold of 100 or more people, that is, if there were fewer than 100 people in a specific population group in a specific geographic area, their population and housing characteristics data are not available for that geographic area.

This poll, conducted September 28-October 1, 2003, is part of a continuing series of monthly polls that solicit opinions on political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President George W. Bush and his overall job performance, as well as his handling of the situation with Iraq, foreign policy issues, and the economy. Questions probed respondents' views on the state of the economy, whether they expected a change for the worse or the better, and how the state of the economy had changed since President Bush took office. Respondents were asked if they were registered to vote and how much attention they paid to the 2004 presidential campaign. Opinion was gathered on various Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination, including former Illinois Senator Carol Moseley Braun, General Wesley Clark, former Vermont Governor Dr. Howard Dean, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, Reverend Al Sharpton, and Florida Senator Bob Graham. They were also asked whether they were likely to vote in the Republican or Democratic primary or caucus, how they voted in the 2000 election, and how often they vote in primaries or caucuses. Respondents were asked who they would like to see win the Democratic nomination and who they believed would have a chance of winning. Respondents also indicated who they expected to win in November, regardless of the outcome of the Democratic Party nomination. Respondents were asked whether personal family finances, the economy, employment and unemployment, cost of prescription drugs, national security, education, and taxes had positively or negatively changed since President Bush took office. Questions gauged respondents' confidence in President Bush's ability to handle an international crisis or to make economic decisions. Respondents were asked whom they thought President Bush cared about: everyone, Blacks, Hispanics, and the lower, middle, or upper classes. Many questions delved into the respondents' perceptions of President Bush's honesty and integrity and compared that perception to those of current and former political figures. General opinions on Republicans and Democrats were sought as well as whether or not either or both parties had a clear plan for the country. Opinions about the war in Iraq were probed, including whether President Bush was clear on the length and cost of the war. Questions addressed whether or not the United States should spend an extra $87 billion on the Iraq War and whether the outcome and the removal of Saddam Hussein were worth the cost and the loss of American life. Opinions were sought on who should have led the effort in Iraq and whether other countries respected President Bush. Respondents were also asked what they believed was the real cause of the Iraq War, and whether they thought Saddam Hussein was tied to the September 11 attacks. The importance of religion in the respondents' lives was also gauged. Demographic variables include political affiliation, union membership, voting record in 2000, marital status, religious preference, education level, age and age group, Hispanic nationality, race, income, and other possible phone numbers.

This data collection contains the results of a survey of North Carolinians' attitudes about crime. The survey was conducted in 1971 by the Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina. The purpose of the study was to assist agencies in assessing public attitudes toward policies in effect or under consideration, and to measure crime in the state. Questions were asked regarding citizen attitudes toward crime (e.g., the most important problem facing the country, the meaning of "law and order", and the degree of worry about and precaution taken by respondents against personal and property crimes), the frequency of respondents' criminal victimization, the reporting of crime by respondents, the amount of contact and satisfaction with criminal justice agencies such as the police, and respondents' attitudes toward the agencies that were part of the legal justice system in North Carolina. Other data include respondents' receipt of government scholarships, loans, and social services, and information about respondents' political participation, party/candidate support, feelings of political efficacy, and voting history. In addition, respondents were asked the degree of their knowledge and sources of information about federal district court decisions (e.g., on school busing in North Carolina), drug arrests, and the North Carolina Council on Crime and Delinquency. Demographic data include household composition, race, age, sex, marital status, occupation, military service, and length of residence.