According to a 2023 survey, Americans between 18 and 29 years of age were more likely to identify with the Democratic Party than any other surveyed age group. While 39 percent identified as Democrats, only 14 percent identified ad Republicans. However, those 50 and older identified more with the Republican Party.

Since 1988, the share of adults in the U.S. who identify as political independents has continued to grow, often surpassing the that of Democrats or Republicans. In 2024, approximately ** percent of adults rejected identification with the major parties, compared to ** percent of respondents identified with the Democratic Party, and ** percent with the Republican Party.

PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY In the United States, voting is largely a private matter. A registered voter is given a randomized ballot form or machine to prevent linkage between their voting choices and their identity. This disconnect supports confidence in the election process, but it provides obstacles to an election's analysis. A common solution is to field exit polls, interviewing voters immediately after leaving their polling location. This method is rife with bias, however, and functionally limited in direct demographics data collected. For the 2020 general election, though, most states published their election results for each voting location. These publications were additionally supported by the geographical areas assigned to each location, the voting precincts. As a result, geographic processing can now be applied to project precinct election results onto Census block groups. While precinct have few demographic traits directly, their geographies have characteristics that make them projectable onto U.S. Census geographies. Both state voting precincts and U.S. Census block groups: are exclusive, and do not overlap are adjacent, fully covering their corresponding state and potentially county have roughly the same size in area, population and voter presence Analytically, a projection of local demographics does not allow conclusions about voters themselves. However, the dataset does allow statements related to the geographies that yield voting behavior. One could say, for example, that an area dominated by a particular voting pattern would have mean traits of age, race, income or household structure. The dataset that results from this programming provides voting results allocated by Census block groups. The block group identifier can be joined to Census Decennial and American Community Survey demographic estimates. DATA SOURCES The state election results and geographies have been compiled by Voting and Election Science team on Harvard's dataverse. State voting precincts lie within state and county boundaries. The Census Bureau, on the other hand, publishes its estimates across a variety of geographic definitions including a hierarchy of states, counties, census tracts and block groups. Their definitions can be found here. The geometric shapefiles for each block group are available here. The lowest level of this geography changes often and can obsolesce before the next census survey (Decennial or American Community Survey programs). The second to lowest census level, block groups, have the benefit of both granularity and stability however. The 2020 Decennial survey details US demographics into 217,740 block groups with between a few hundred and a few thousand people. Dataset Structure The dataset's columns include: Column Definition BLOCKGROUP_GEOID 12 digit primary key. Census GEOID of the block group row. This code concatenates: 2 digit state 3 digit county within state 6 digit Census Tract identifier 1 digit Census Block Group identifier within tract STATE State abbreviation, redundent with 2 digit state FIPS code above REP Votes for Republican party candidate for president DEM Votes for Democratic party candidate for president LIB Votes for Libertarian party candidate for president OTH Votes for presidential candidates other than Republican, Democratic or Libertarian AREA square kilometers of area associated with this block group GAP total area of the block group, net of area attributed to voting precincts PRECINCTS Number of voting precincts that intersect this block group ASSUMPTIONS, NOTES AND CONCERNS: Votes are attributed based upon the proportion of the precinct's area that intersects the corresponding block group. Alternative methods are left to the analyst's initiative. 50 states and the District of Columbia are in scope as those U.S. possessions voting in the general election for the U.S. Presidency. Three states did not report their results at the precinct level: South Dakota, Kentucky and West Virginia. A dummy block group is added for each of these states to maintain national totals. These states represent 2.1% of all votes cast. Counties are commonly coded using FIPS codes. However, each election result file may have the county field named differently. Also, three states do not share county definitions - Delaware, Massachusetts, Alaska and the District of Columbia. Block groups may be used to capture geographies that do not have population like bodies of water. As a result, block groups without intersection voting precincts are not uncommon. In the U.S., elections are administered at a state level with the Federal Elections Commission compiling state totals against the Electoral College weights. The states have liberty, though, to define and change their own voting precincts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_precinct. The Census Bureau... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3A05707c1dc04a814129f751937a6ea56b08413546b18b351a85bc96da16a7f8b5 for complete metadata about this dataset.

In the last few decades, the Democratic Party has often pulled ahead of the Republican Party in terms of party identification. However, 2022 saw a shift in party identification, with slightly more Americans identifying with the Republican Party for the first time since 2011, when both parties stood at ** percent in 2011. These values include not only those surveyed who identified with a major political party, but also those who identified as independent, but have leanings towards one party over another.

This data collection contains electoral and demographic data for Massachusetts counties and cities during 1848-1876. The data for this collection were compiled to study electoral changes in Massachusetts politics during the Civil War period and to link the changes to socioeconomic determinants of support for the Republican and Democratic parties. Specific variables include number of voters for specific years and demographic information such as number of males and females and number of males employed in certain trades. Electoral data consists of election results.

Whites have become decreasingly likely to support the Democratic Party. I show this shift is being driven by two mechanisms. The first mechanism is the process of ideological sorting. The Democratic Party has lost support among conservative whites because the relationships between partisanship, voting behavior, and policy orientations have strengthened. The second mechanism relates to demographic changes. The growth of liberal minority populations has shifted the median position on economic issues to the left and away from the median white citizen’s position. The parties have responded to these changes by shifting their positions and whites have become less likely to support the Democratic Party as a result. I test these explanations using 40 years of ANES and DW-NOMINATE data. I find that whites have become 7.7-points more likely vote for the Republican Party and mean white partisanship has shifted .25 points in favor of the Republicans as a combined result of both mechanisms.

This dataset was designed to provide information on the personal and political backgrounds, political attitudes, and relevant behavior of party leaders. The data pertain to Democratic and Republican party elites holding office during the election year of 1984 and include County and State Chairs, members of the Democratic and Republican National Committees, and delegates to the 1984 National Conventions. These data focus on the "representativeness" of the party elites on a variety of dimensions and also permit a comparison of party leaders from the local, state, and national organizational levels. Special emphasis is placed on the presidential election, the presidential nominations system, public policy issues current in the 1984 campaign, and the future of the political parties. In addition, special note was taken of the views of women and minorities and the problem of providing them with representation in the parties. The question of whether their policy views and ideologies differed from other political party elites was also explored. Specific variables include characterization of respondent's political beliefs on the liberal-conservative scale, length of time the respondent had been active in the party, and the respondent's opinions on minorities in the party, party unity, national- and local-level party strength, and party loyalty. Respondents were also queried on attitudes toward important national problems, defense spending, and inflation. In addition, their opinions were elicited on controversial provisions instituted by their parties and on the directions their parties should take in the future. Demographic characteristics are supplied as well.

According to a 2023 survey of U.S. adults, non-Hispanic white adults were much more likely to identify as Republican or Republican-leaning than non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults.

These values include not only those surveyed who identified with a major political party, but also those who identified as independent, but have leanings towards one party over another.

The Detroit Area Study (DAS) is a face-to-face survey of adults in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area. Information was collected on the political attitudes and behavior of 596 adults in the period during the fall of 1956 and early spring 1957. This collection was a combination of two separate studies: PARTY LEADERSHIP AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOR by Daniel Katz and Samuel Eldersveld, and INTRA-CLASS CORRELATION OF ATTITUDES IN DETROIT by Leslie Kish. Of the 596 respondents, 149 were categorized as belonging to a leadership sample consisting of 77 Republicans and 72 Democratic precinct leaders. For data on the political activities and attitudes of party leaders, see the related collection, DETROIT AREA STUDY, 1957: LEADER SURVEY (ICPSR 7107) (ICPSR 07107). Items in this survey focused on perceptions, attitudes, and behavior of the adult public toward party structures and organizations at the county, district, and precinct levels. In order to assess the sources of influence on the respondents' political attitudes and behavior, they were asked about the mass media they depended on most heavily for political information, as well as the frequency with which politics was discussed in meetings of their families, friends, neighbors, and other groups to which they belonged. A series of questions asked for whom respondents had voted in the 1956 presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional races, as well as which presidential candidate their family, friends, co-workers, and neighbors voted for. Other questions elicited information about the respondents' knowledge of and involvement in local party politics and their knowledge of precinct workers and their state party chairman. Also explored were respondents' feelings about the importance of voting, their general attitudes toward politics and political figures such as Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Eisenhower, their perception of the differences between the major parties on various issues, and their opinions on several controversial issues such as a national health care, school integration, ending the military draft, and monetary aid to countries that were not anti-communist. Additional items covered the use of telephones in respondents' homes, their living experiences before coming to Detroit, their handling of change of residences since coming to Detroit, and their feelings about their neighborhood. Demographic variables include the respondent's age, sex, race, education level, place of birth, marital status, number of children, religious preference, frequency of religious attendance, political party affiliation, voter registration status and participation history, employment status, occupation, labor union membership, perceived social class, relationship to the head of household, length of time at present residence, and length of residence in the Detroit area. Demographic information was collected on the nationality, occupation, and political party affiliation of the respondent's father. Information was also collected on the number and ages of household members, the number of household members employed, labor union membership in the household, household income, whether anyone in the household was employed by the government, and the occupation and employment status of the head of the household.

This web map displays data from the voter registration database as the percent of registered voters by census tract in King County, Washington. The data for this web map is compiled from King County Elections voter registration data for the years 2013-2019. The total number of registered voters is based on the geo-location of the voter's registered address at the time of the general election for each year. The eligible voting population, age 18 and over, is based on the estimated population increase from the US Census Bureau and the Washington Office of Financial Management and was calculated as a projected 6 percent population increase for the years 2010-2013, 7 percent population increase for the years 2010-2014, 9 percent population increase for the years 2010-2015, 11 percent population increase for the years 2010-2016 & 2017, 14 percent population increase for the years 2010-2018 and 17 percent population increase for the years 2010-2019. The total population 18 and over in 2010 was 1,517,747 in King County, Washington. The percentage of registered voters represents the number of people who are registered to vote as compared to the eligible voting population, age 18 and over. The voter registration data by census tract was grouped into six percentage range estimates: 50% or below, 51-60%, 61-70%, 71-80%, 81-90% and 91% or above with an overall 84 percent registration rate. In the map the lighter colors represent a relatively low percentage range of voter registration and the darker colors represent a relatively high percentage range of voter registration. PDF maps of these data can be viewed at King County Elections downloadable voter registration maps. The 2019 General Election Voter Turnout layer is voter turnout data by historical precinct boundaries for the corresponding year. The data is grouped into six percentage ranges: 0-30%, 31-40%, 41-50% 51-60%, 61-70%, and 71-100%. The lighter colors represent lower turnout and the darker colors represent higher turnout. The King County Demographics Layer is census data for language, income, poverty, race and ethnicity at the census tract level and is based on the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5 year Average provided by the United States Census Bureau. Since the data is based on a survey, they are considered to be estimates and should be used with that understanding. The demographic data sets were developed and are maintained by King County Staff to support the King County Equity and Social Justice program. Other data for this map is located in the King County GIS Spatial Data Catalog, where data is managed by the King County GIS Center, a multi-department enterprise GIS in King County, Washington. King County has nearly 1.3 million registered voters and is the largest jurisdiction in the United States to conduct all elections by mail. In the map you can view the percent of registered voters by census tract, compare registration within political districts, compare registration and demographic data, verify your voter registration or register to vote through a link to the VoteWA, Washington State Online Voter Registration web page.

This dataset contains voter registration data in Iowa by month and county starting with January 2000. It identifies the number of voters registered as Democrats, Republicans, other party or no party. Libertarians were reported separately March 2017 through January 2019, and beginning again in January 2023. The dataset also identifies the number of active and inactive voter registrations. Inactive voters are those to whom official mailings have been sent from the county auditor’s office, the notice was returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service and the voter has not responded to a follow up confirmation notice. [§48A.37]

This dataset contains counts of voter registration and voter turnout for all counties in the United States for the years 2004-2022. It also contains measures of each county's Democratic and Republican partisanship, including six-year longitudinal partisan indices for 2006-2022.

This special topic poll, conducted October 19-22, 2006, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the current presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way George W. Bush was handling his job as president, whether they approved of the way Congress and their own representative in Congress was handling their job, and to rate the condition of the national economy. Registered voters were asked whether they followed the congressional elections, whether they were likely to vote, and which candidate they would vote for if the election were being held that day. Registered voters who had already voted absentee were asked which candidate they voted for, how enthusiastic they were about their vote, and whether their vote was more for one political party, or more against the other political party. Opinions were solicited on what was the most important issue in congressional elections, whether things in the country were generally going in the right direction, whether their reason for voting for a candidate for Congress included showing support for George W. Bush, which political party they trusted to do a better job handling issues such as the situation in Iraq and the economy, and whether they thought a change of control from the Republicans to the Democrats would be a good thing. Information was collected on whether respondents had been contacted by any organization working in support of a candidate for Congress and which political party they were asked to vote for, whether the 2006 congressional elections were more important to the country than past elections, and whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting. Additional questions asked how much Congress should be blamed for problems relating to the war with Iraq, how much credit Congress should get for preventing terrorist attacks, whether respondents felt optimistic about the situation in Iraq, and if the United States had the same kind of involvement in the war with Iraq as it did the Vietnam war. Demographic variables include sex, age, religion, race, education level, household income, labor union membership, voter registration and participation history, political party affiliation, political philosophy, employment status, marital status, and type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural).

The United States House of Representatives has 435 members. The number of seats allocated to each state is determined by a state's population. The 119th Congress was sworn-in in January 2025, with the Republicans holding a majority with 220 seats. In this year, the Republican Party was in control of the Senate, House of Representatives, and the Presidency.

According to a survey conducted in 2023, Gen Z teens were more likely than other generations to identify as independents in the United States, at ** percent. A further ** percent of Gen Z teens identified as Democratic, while ** percent identified as Republicans.

US Presidential Campaign Logos

Color Diversity and Demographics

By Amber Thomas [source]

About this dataset

We conducted extensive research on popular election campaigns from 1968-2020 as compiled on Wikipedia's entry for each year. From this initial list, we excluded 32 candidates whose images could not be found--leaving us with a total of 271 primary and general party candidates across 14 electoral cycles during that period. In our search for campaign logo images, we prioritized official signs used at rallies, podiums, yards, posters, and bumper stickers with required Federal Election Commission disclaimers--resorting to using buttons only when absolutely necessary . We acknowledge that due to advances in technology, the printing process has significantly impacted the design aesthetics for modern logos compared to those made decades ago.

Using Chrome DevTools or Adobe Photoshop software programs; hexadecimal color values were retreived for each logo clipped from sources such as candidate websites or obtained through additional research efforts. To recognize RWB logos--those using only three colors of red white blue (RWB) --we also surveyed designs including accent tones paired with RWB palettes , two-color schemes (Red/Blue; Red/White; Blue/White), and multiple shades derived from a combination of any 3 primary or secondary RBW hues respectively.

In addition to visual elements associated with picture datasets , candidate demographics such as race , gender are indicated here as binary categories indicating whether a particular demographic is identifiable under one particular label ie either male / female or White / non White individuals . Candidates who fit into both these dual criteria are classfied under majority categories identified under binary labels ie ' whiteMale '. For greater census accuracy candidates classified simply as minority categorizations are merged sounding various Other labels including males belonging outidese racial definitions regardless if identifyingthemselves belonging within -- inclusion of them details belongs hereinunder :

name: The name of the candidate    (String);
party: The political party of thhe candiatate (String);              
white : Binary value indicating if thee candidiate is White     (Boolean);        male: Binary value indocating ffffthueee ccandidate is maille      (Boolean );           whitaeMaile :: Binary alula indicatig

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

This dataset can be useful for understanding trends in campaign symbolism and visual rhetoric surrounding US presidential elections over time. This data could be used to evaluate how diversity amongst candidates is reflected in their campaign visuals by looking at changes in color usage or exploring differences between Democratic and Republican campaigns.

The data can also be visualized to create charts or maps that display possible trends or themes across different elections. This can help users more easily identify patterns between campaign logs for research purposes or simply make for an interesting comparison tool to explore different aspects of certain elections through visuals rather than text alone.

Using this data is easy! Start by familiarizing yourself with all the columns included; you will find information regarding RWB & non-RWB percentages, hexadecimal value breakdowns of each logo's colors & general candidate demographic information such as gender & race. Select desired columns to focus on and decide which analysis method works best; graphical representational options including line graphs, scatter graphs & pie charts are great ways to visually explore how various factors affect color usage both within an election cycle & across multiple cycles over time! Finally you can use these insights gleaned from your analysis to generate interesting questions regarding campaign symbolism design's relationship/influence on voting population demographics/politics!

Research Ideas

• Create an interactive map to show the color trends of presidential logos over the years.
• Use a machine learning algorithm to analyze how the logo colors correlate with primary and general elections.
• Analyze how diversity and inclusion in presidential campaigns has changed by comparing RWB versus non-RWB percentages for each year or election cycle

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

...

This article analyses effect of primary elections on party membership and electoral behaviour. Direct democracy instruments trigger significant modifications in the role and behaviour of grassroots members. The case of the Italian centre-left parties, and particularly the Democratic Party, is in this sense relevant, as for over a decade, they have been reaching out to supporters in order to integrate them into decision-making processes, such as selecting the party leader, candidates or the chief executive candidate. The distinction between members and supporters has become blurred. The article focuses on voting behaviour and party attachment of three different groups of primary voters, namely party members, supporters and external voters. This paper aims to explore the differences among the three groups, particularly with regard to socio-political and ideological profiles, political behaviour and party loyalty. What is the difference between the three groups with regard to voting behaviour and motivations in primary elections? And what is the difference with regard to voting intentions in general elections? We will examine these issues using survey data collected in 2012 during the centre-left coalitions' primary elections. Through this original dataset, evidence can be found regarding the consequences of the differences in the political profiles between members and supporters regarding their voting behaviour and motivations.

Political situation in Germany. Attitudes towards political parties.

Topics: Turnout intention and voting intention (Sunday question); Alternative voting intention; other electable party: Pirate Party; other electable party: Free voters; voting behaviour in the last federal election in 2009 (recall); positive or negative association with terms (people´s party, compassion, conservative, christian, social, close to the economy, middle-class, liberal, opportunities, achievement, cohesion, freedom, security, stability, order, performance justice, social market economy, centre, qualified immigration, budget consolidation, freedom of choice for families, intelligent saving, respect, demographic change, values, tradition, home, trust); annoyance about political decisions; issues about which one was annoyed; affected by political decisions (current); decisions by which one was personally affected (current); positive or negative impact of the decision; affected by political decisions (prospective); decisions by which one will be personally affected (prospective); party with which one feels most comfortable; subjective affiliation with ´little people´.

Political positions (politics takes care of the problems of the little people, concern about limiting living standards, debt reduction to maintain prosperity, public debt is good if it is made for the future of the children, fear of going out alone in the evening, problems keeping up with the pace of everyday life, state support for those who are willing to perform, acceptance of the performance principle, people´s parties prevent the assertion of individual interests, 30 km/h speed limit in cities, support for large-scale projects); association of certain terms with parties (people´s party, modern, compassionate, conservative, christian, down-to-earth, social, close to the economy, middle-class, liberal, advancement, opportunities, achievement, cohesion, freedom, security, stability, order, performance fairness, future, social market economy, centre, prosperity, qualified immigration, budget consolidation, freedom of choice for families, intelligent savings, demographic change, values, tradition, home, good governance, expertise, cares for citizens, party for all, can move Germany forward, strong leadership, energetic, honest, reliable, credible, responsible, trust).

Demography: age; highest school-leaving qualification; intended school-leaving qualification, completed studies; completed apprenticeship; occupation; profession; household size; frequency of churchgoing; party identification (direction, strength, stability); sex.

Additionally coded were: Federal state; inhabitant of place of residence; target persons in the household; number of telephone numbers; indicator replenishment sample; weighting factors.

1 Note: These likelihoods can also be defined as expectations as described in [34].Summary Statistics of Congressional Representatives and Voting Records.

This special topic poll, conducted November 6-10, 1996, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of political and social issues. The focus of this data collection was on the presidential and congressional elections held November 5, 1996. In the days following the election, respondents who had voted were asked about their choice for president, when they decided on their candidate, whether they had known enough about the candidates to make an informed choice, and whether factors such as leadership and a candidate's stance on issues were major or minor reasons for their vote. Respondents were quizzed on their knowledge of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates, as well as party platforms, campaign funding, and which party had the most members in the United States Congress. Views were sought on the media's treatment of the presidential candidates, campaign advertisements featuring the issue of Medicare, whether the presidential campaigns were more negative than in the past, and whether the news media should report public opinion poll results. Other topics addressed the condition of the national economy, abortion, sources of campaign information, types of negative news media coverage, and how much attention respondents paid to media coverage of the presidential campaign. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, ethnicity, education level, marital status, household income, political party affiliation, political philosophy, labor union membership, voter registration status, religious preference, and whether respondents thought of themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians.