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.

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.

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.

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.

Welcome to BatchData, your trusted source for comprehensive US homeowner data, contact information, and demographic data, all designed to empower political campaigns. In the fast-paced world of politics, staying ahead and targeting the right audience is crucial for success.

At BatchData, we understand the importance of having the most accurate, up-to-date, and relevant data to help you make informed decisions and connect with your constituents effectively. With our robust data offerings, political campaign agencies can easily reach both homeowners and renters, using direct contact information such as cell phone numbers, emails, and mailing addresses.

The Power of Data in Political Campaigns In the digital age, political campaigns are increasingly reliant on data-driven strategies. Precise targeting, tailored messaging, and efficient outreach have become the cornerstones of successful political campaigning. BatchData equips political campaign agencies with the tools they need to harness the power of data in their campaigns, enabling them to make the most of every interaction. Harness the power of voter data and campaign & election data to effectively run political campaigns.

Key Features of BatchData 1. US Homeowner Data At BatchData, we understand that having access to accurate and comprehensive homeowner data is the bedrock of a successful political campaign. Our vast database includes information on homeowners across the United States, allowing you to precisely target this key demographic. With our homeowner data, you can segment your campaign and craft messages that resonate with this audience. Whether you're running a local, state, or national campaign, our homeowner data is an invaluable asset.

1. Contact Information 258M Phone Numbers (US Phone Number Data) BatchData doesn't just stop at providing you with demographic data; we go a step further by giving you direct contact information. We offer cell phone numbers, email addresses, and mailing addresses, ensuring that you can connect with your audience on multiple fronts. This multifaceted approach allows you to engage with potential voters in a way that suits their preferences and lifestyles. Whether you want to send targeted emails, reach out through phone calls, or even send physical mailers, BatchData has you covered with both the data and the tools. (See BatchDialer for more Info).

2. Demographic Data In addition to homeowner data and contact information, BatchData provides a treasure trove of demographic data. You can refine your campaign strategy by tailoring your messages to specific demographics, including age, gender, income, religious preferences, and more. Our demographic data helps you understand your audience better, allowing you to craft compelling messages that resonate with their values and interests.

3. Targeting Both Homeowners and Renters We understand that not all political campaigns are exclusively focused on homeowners. That's why BatchData caters to a diverse range of campaign needs. Whether your campaign is directed at homeowners or renters, our data sets have you covered. You can effectively target a broader spectrum of the population, ensuring that your message reaches the right people, regardless of their housing status.

Flexible Data Delivery Methods BatchData understands that political campaigns are time-sensitive, and efficiency is paramount. That's why we offer a variety of data delivery methods to suit your specific needs.

1. API Integration For real-time access to data, our API integration is your go-to solution. Easily integrate BatchData's data into your campaign management systems, ensuring that you always have the latest information at your fingertips.

2. Bulk File Delivery When you require a large volume of data in one go, our bulk file delivery option is ideal. We'll deliver the data to you in a format that's easy to import into your campaign databases, allowing you to work with a comprehensive dataset on your terms.

3. S3 Data Storage If you prefer to host your data in an S3 bucket, BatchData can seamlessly deliver your datasets to the cloud storage location of your choice. This option ensures that your data is readily available whenever you need it.

4. Self-Service List Building Our self-service list building tool empowers you to create custom lists based on your specific criteria. You have the flexibility to choose the data elements you need, ensuring that your campaign efforts are tailored to your goals.

5. File Exporting Need to download data for offline use or share it with your team? Our file exporting feature lets you export data in a user-friendly format, making it easy to work with.

6. On-Demand Concierge Services For those campaigns that require a more personalized touch, BatchData offers on-demand concierge services. Our experienced team is here to assist you in building lists, refining your targeting, and providing support as needed. This high-touch service ensures that you have t...

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.

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.

According 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.

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.

In 2018, Massachusetts was the state that leaned most toward the Democratic Party, with ** percent of people surveyed throughout the year stating they either identify with or lean towards the Democrats. On the other end of the political spectrum, ** percent of respondents in Wyoming preferred the Republican Party.

This dataset was created on 2020-07-13.

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 45 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.

Affluent 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.

With 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

The share of people in the United States who trust in the government has been steadily decreasing for both Democrats and Republicans. However, 2024 saw an increase across all political ideologies, but remained lowest amongst conservative Republicans, with only ***** percent of those surveyed inMay 2024 stating they trust their government always or most of the time. This figure stood at ** percent in 1972.

These data are derived from CANDIDATE NAME AND CONSTITUENCY TOTALS, 1788-1990 (ICPSR 0002). They consist of returns for two-thirds of all elections from 1788 to 1823 to the offices of president, governor, and United States representative, and over 90 percent of all elections to those offices since 1824. They also include information on United States Senate elections since 1912. Returns for one additional statewide office are included beginning with the 1968 election. This file provides a set of derived measures describing the vote totals for candidates and the pattern of contest in each constituency. These measures include the total number of votes cast for all candidates in the election, each candidate's percentage of the vote received, and several measures of the relative performance of each candidate. They are appended to the individual candidate records and permit extensive analysis of electoral contests over time. This dataset contains returns for all parties and candidates (as well as scattering vote) for general elections and special elections, including information on elections for which returns were available only at the constituency level. Included in this edition are data from the District of Columbia election for United States senator and United States representative. The offices of two senators and one representative were created by the "District of Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiative," which was approved by District voters in 1980. Elections for these offices were postponed until the 1990 general election. The three offices are currently local District positions, which will turn into federal offices if the District becomes a state.

Day four of the 2024 Republican National Convention was watched by over 25 million Americans, significantly up from the previous days. Older age groups were the most likely to tune in, with around 18.4 million people aged 55 years and older watching the final night when Donald Trump was accepted for the presidential nomination.

We examine the social antecedents for contributing to campaigns, with a particular focus on the role of population density and social networking opportunities. Using 10 years of US campaign contribution data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and a national survey of party leaders, we find that recruiting contributors is easier in a densely populated region, where the daily opportunity of individuals being exposed to the same information via their social networks is high. Furthermore, the effect of population density is heterogeneous with respect to mobility: if a region has substantial commuting outflow, the chance of being mobilized from the place of residence decreases, but the chance of mobilization in their place of work increases. This analysis also reveals differences between political parties. Democrats are more dependent on social networking in population dense areas. This difference in the importance of social networking opportunities present in geographical space helps explain macro-level patterns in party fundraising.

According to a 2024 poll, roughly ** percent of people in the United States identified as conservative or very conservative. While this has stayed relatively consistent since 1992, the number of Americans who considered their political views liberal or very liberal has increased from ** percent in 1992 to ** percent in 2024.

According to a 2024 survey, Democrats were overwhelmingly more likely than Republicans to express trust in the mass media to report the news without bias, with 11 percent of Democrats saying they trust it a great deal, and 43 percent saying a fair amount. Only 12 percent of Republicans who were surveyed expressed trust in mass media in general. In contrast, 88 percent of Republicans said that they did not trust mass media, compared to 46 percent of Democrats.