Facebook
TwitterSince 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.
Facebook
TwitterIn 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.
Facebook
TwitterAccording 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.
Facebook
TwitterPROBLEM 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.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/7368/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/7368/terms
Supplementary Empirical Teaching Units in Political Science (SETUPS) for American Politics are computer-related modules designed for use in teaching introductory courses in American government and politics. The modules are intended to demonstrate the process of examining evidence and reaching conclusions and to stimulate students to independent, critical thinking and a deeper understanding of substantive content. They enable students with no previous training to make use of the computer to analyze data on political behavior or to see the results of policy decisions by use of a simulation model. The SETUPS: AMERICAN POLITICS modules were developed by a group of political scientists with experience in teaching introductory American government courses who were brought together in a workshop supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation in the summer of 1974. The American Political Science Association administered the grant, and the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research was host to the workshop and provided data for most of the SETUPS. The modules were tested and evaluated during the 1974-1975 academic year by students and faculty in 155 classes at 69 universities and colleges. Appropriate revisions were made based upon this experience. This collection comprises 15 separate modules: (1) Political Socialization Across the Generations, (2) Political Participation, (3) Voting Behavior, The 1980 Election, (4) Elections and the Mass Media, (5) The Supreme Court in American Politics, Court Decisions, (6) The Supreme Court in American Politics, Police Interrogations, (7) The Dynamics of Political Budgeting, A Public Policy Simulation, State Expenditures, (8) The Dynamics of Political Budgeting, A Public Policy Simulation, SIMSTATE Simulation, (9) The Dynamics of Political Budgeting, A Public Policy Simulation, SIMSTATE II Simulation, (10) Fear of Crime, (11) Presidential Popularity in America, Presidential Popularity, (12) Presidential Popularity in America, Advanced Analyses, (13) Campaign '80, The Public and the Presidential Selection Process, (14) Voting Behavior, The 1976 Election, and (15) Policy Responsiveness and Fiscal Strain in 51 American Communities. Parts 8 and 9 are FORTRAN IV program SIMSTATE sourcedecks intended to simulate the interaction of state policies. Variables in the various modules provide information on respondents' level of political involvement and knowledge of political issues, general political attitudes and beliefs, news media exposure and usage, voting behavior (Parts 1, 2, and 3), and sectional biases (15). Other items provide information on respondents' views of government, politics, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter as presidents, best form of government, government spending (Part 3), local police, the Supreme Court (Parts 4 and 15), the economy, and domestic and foreign affairs. Additional items probed respondents' opinions of prayer in school, abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment Law, nuclear energy, and the most important national problem and the political party most suitable to handle it (Part 3). Also included are items on votes of Supreme Court judges (Part 5), arrest of criminal suspects and their treatment by law enforcement agencies (Part 6), federal government expenditures and budgeting (Part 7), respondents' feelings of safety at home, neighborhood crime rate, frequency of various kinds of criminal victimization, the personal characteristics of the targets of those crimes (Part 10), respondents' opinions of and choice of party presidential candidates nominees (Part 13), voter turnout for city elections (15), urban unrest, and population growth rate. Demographic items specify age, sex, race, marital status, education, occupation, income, social class identification, religion, political party affiliation, and union membership.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Details the statistics of the Electoral College vote and popular vote over time in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Also shows the voting population participation trend over time.
Facebook
TwitterAccording to a 2024 survey, ** percent of social media users in the United States used Facebook, and ** percent of left-leaning users used the social network. Overall, ** percent of social media users who were politically left-leaning used Pinterest, compared to ** percent of right-leaning users.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38506/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38506/terms
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.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/8209/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/8209/terms
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 1980 and include County and State Chairs, members of the Democratic and Republican National Committees, and delegates to the 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. Other issues explored include the party reform era, the effects of the growing body of party law, and the nationalization of the political parties. 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 in their parties' charters and on the directions their parties should take in the future. Demographic characteristics are supplied as well.
Facebook
TwitterThis 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.
Facebook
TwitterAccording 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.
Facebook
TwitterMIT Licensehttps://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
License information was derived automatically
This dataset contains the county-wise vote share of the United States presidential election of 2020, and in the future 2024, the main advantage of the dataset is that it contains various important county statistics such as the counties racial composition, median and mean income, income inequality, population density, education level, population and the counties occupational distribution.
_Imp: this dataset will be updated as the 2024 results come in, I will also be adding more county demographic data, if you have any queries or suggestions please feel free to comment _
The reasons for constructing this dataset are many, however the prime reason was to aggregate all the data on counties along with the election result data for easy analysis in one place. I noticed that Kaggle contains no datasets with detailed county information, and that using the US census bureau site is pretty difficult and time consuming to extract data so it would be better to have a pre-prepared table of data
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/35513/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/35513/terms
The US Newspapers in the American South, 1869-1896 data collection contains the number and circulation of non-daily newspapers in each of the 11 former Confederate States of America in 1869 and every presidential year between 1872 and 1896, inclusive. The raw data come from two annual directories of US newspapers: George P. Rowell and Company's (Rowell's) American Newspaper Directory (1869-1876) and N.W. Ayer and Son's (Ayer's) American Newspaper Annual (1880-1896). Variables in this collection include newspaper names, year established, political party affiliation, subscription price, and language.
Facebook
TwitterAffluent Americans used to vote for Republican politicians. Now they vote for Democrats. In this paper, I show detailed evidence for this decades-in-the-making trend and argue that it has important consequences for the U.S. politics of economic inequality and redistribution. Beginning in the 1990s, the Democratic Party has won increasing shares of rich, upper-middle income, high-income occupation, and stock-owning voters. This appears true across voters of all races and ethnicities, is concentrated among (but not exclusive to) college-educated voters, and is only true among voters living in larger metropolitan areas. In the 2010s, Democratic candidates' electoral appeal among affluent voters reached above-majority levels. I echo other scholars in maintaining that this trend is partially driven by increasingly “culturally liberal” views of educated voters and party elite polarization on those issues, but I additionally argue that the evolution and stasis of the parties' respective economic policy agendas has also been a necessary condition for the changing behavior of affluent voters. This reversal of an American politics truism means that the Democratic Party's attempts to cohere around an economically redistributive policy agenda in an era of rising inequality face real barriers.
Facebook
TwitterThe "https://www.pewresearch.org/american-trends-panel-datasets/" Target="_blank">American Trends Panel (ATP), created by "https://www.pewresearch.org/our-methods/u-s-surveys/the-american-trends-panel/" Target="_blank">Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish. The panel is being managed by "https://www.ipsos.com/en" Target="_blank">Ipsos.
Data in this report are drawn from the panel wave conducted March 1 to March 7, 2021. A total of 12,055 panelists responded out of 13,545 who were sampled, for a response rate of 89 percent. The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is four percent. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is one percent. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 12,055 respondents is plus or minus one-and-a-half percentage points.
The ATP Wave 84 asked questions about religion in politics and tolerance.
Facebook
TwitterAccording 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.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/35244/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/35244/terms
The 2008 Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) Recruitment Studies are studies of United States state legislators' and mayors' pathways to office that were conducted by the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. Data about state legislators and mayors of big cities were gathered through survey instruments that consisted primarily of questions concerning the decision to seek office, previous political experience, and personal background. The studies, which were conducted by mail, web, and phone, were designed to replicate a 1981 CAWP study about gender and pathways to elective office. All women serving in the legislatures of the 50 states were surveyed, along with a random sample of men state legislators; men were randomly selected and sampled in proportion to the number of women serving in each chamber and state. All women mayors of cities with a population of 30,000 and above serving in 2008 were surveyed, along with a random sample of men mayors. Demographic variables include age, education, race, and marital status.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/21500/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/21500/terms
This data file does not represent new content, but instead it is the result of merging data from the 2000 NES, the 2002 NES, and the 2004 ANES Panel Study. The 2000 ANES contains questions in areas such as values and predispositions, media exposure, social altruism, and social networks. Special-interest and topical content includes a sizable battery on the Clinton legacy and a smaller retrospective battery on former President George H.W. Bush, new social trust questions specific to neighborhood and workplace, expanded content on civic engagement, questions related to the debate about campaign finance reform, and the first ANES time series appearance of measures on cognitive style. The 2002 ANES contains questions in areas such as social trust and civic engagement. Special-interest and topical content includes questions on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the war on terrorism, economic inequality, the 2000 Presidential election, recent corporate scandals, the 2001 tax cut, and proposed elimination of the estate tax. The 2004 phase of the panel study was given in large part to questions that capture the likely consequences of the election contest of 2000 and the terrorist attack of September 11th, as understood and interpreted by ordinary Americans. This included instrumentation on participation in political and civic life, satisfaction with democratic institutions, support for administration policy, and views on Afghanistan, Iraq, and homeland security. Demographic variables include sex, race, age, marital status, family income, education level, religious preference, political party affiliation, voter participation history, and registration status.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
As part of Cards Against Humanity Saves America, this poll is funded for one year of monthly public opinion polls. Cards Against Humanity is asking the American people about their social and political views, what they think of the president, and their pee-pee habits.
To conduct their polls in a scientifically rigorous manner, they partnered with Survey Sampling International — a professional research firm — to contact a nationally representative sample of the American public. For the first three polls, they interrupted people’s dinners on both their cell phones and landlines, and a total of about 3,000 adults didn’t hang up immediately. They examined the data for statistically significant correlations which can be found here: [https://thepulseofthenation.com/][1]
These polls are from Cards Against Humanity Saves America and the raw data can be found here: [https://thepulse...
Facebook
TwitterWith Versium REACH Demographic Append you will have access to many different attributes for enriching your data.
Basic, Household and Financial, Lifestyle and Interests, Political and Donor.
Here is a list of what sorts of attributes are available for each output type listed above:
Basic:
- Senior in Household
- Young Adult in Household
- Small Office or Home Office
- Online Purchasing Indicator
- Language
- Marital Status
- Working Woman in Household
- Single Parent
- Online Education
- Occupation
- Gender
- DOB (MM/YY)
- Age Range
- Religion
- Ethnic Group
- Presence of Children
- Education Level
- Number of Children
Household, Financial and Auto: - Household Income - Dwelling Type - Credit Card Holder Bank - Upscale Card Holder - Estimated Net Worth - Length of Residence - Credit Rating - Home Own or Rent - Home Value - Home Year Built - Number of Credit Lines - Auto Year - Auto Make - Auto Model - Home Purchase Date - Refinance Date - Refinance Amount - Loan to Value - Refinance Loan Type - Home Purchase Price - Mortgage Purchase Amount - Mortgage Purchase Loan Type - Mortgage Purchase Date - 2nd Most Recent Mortgage Amount - 2nd Most Recent Mortgage Loan Type - 2nd Most Recent Mortgage Date - 2nd Most Recent Mortgage Interest Rate Type - Refinance Rate Type - Mortgage Purchase Interest Rate Type - Home Pool
Lifestyle and Interests:
- Mail Order Buyer
- Pets
- Magazines
- Reading
- Current Affairs and Politics
- Dieting and Weight Loss
- Travel
- Music
- Consumer Electronics
- Arts
- Antiques
- Home Improvement
- Gardening
- Cooking
- Exercise
- Sports
- Outdoors
- Womens Apparel
- Mens Apparel
- Investing
- Health and Beauty
- Decorating and Furnishing
Political and Donor: - Donor Environmental - Donor Animal Welfare - Donor Arts and Culture - Donor Childrens Causes - Donor Environmental or Wildlife - Donor Health - Donor International Aid - Donor Political - Donor Conservative Politics - Donor Liberal Politics - Donor Religious - Donor Veterans - Donor Unspecified - Donor Community - Party Affiliation
Facebook
TwitterSince 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.