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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

NYU Libraries has licensed access to the L2 Political Academic Voter File. The file is a continuously updated dataset consisting of public information for every registered voter in the United States and includes basic socio-demographic indicators (some of which are modeled), consumer preferences, political party affiliation, voting history, and more.

The data consists of .tab files organized into individual state folders (all states and DC). Each state folder contains two files: demographics data and voter history data, with a data dictionary for each dataset. The size of the folders vary by state and data for all states adds up to approximately 40 GB. The data is organized into releases, generally two per year (spring and fall), which represent a snapshot of the country's voters at the time of the dataset creation.

NYU has also licensed access to L2 Political historical backlog of data. This backlog includes versions of the L2 Processed voter file going back to 2008 (for most U.S. states) and unprocessed "raw" state voter rolls, also going back to 2008 for most U.S. states.

This collection is available to NYU faculty and students only, and requires user to first submit a data management plan to account for how access and storage of the data will be handled. Information on how to submit a request to use this data and create a data management plan is available at https://guides.nyu.edu/l2political.

Abstract This research is aimed at understanding the supposed US party polarization. Through a methodology that privileges the use of national platforms as an indicative of ideological portrait and gradation indicators, this study aims to empirically show in a historical perspective the approximations and distances between the two most important political parties in USA and, consequently, the rise or decline of ideologies as conservatism and liberalism. The time framed goes from 1936 (first election post New Deal) to 2016. The results indicate that there is a party polarization in recent period, not singular in the history of the country, but unique in the sense that both parties head to extremes of the political spectrum characterized, mainly, by a conservative ascendancy by the Republican Party with regards to social issues. Far from a centrist discourse or not committed supposedly intending to collect a higher number of electors, the US parties define themselves by opposed positionings. One still needs to know if this is a process that benefits democracy when representing society with all its idiosyncrasies or it is one process that harms democracy by contemplating extremes not always characteristics of the society as a whole.

This poll, fielded February 12-14, 2000, is 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. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President Bill Clinton and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, and the economy. Views were sought on the condition of the national economy, the projected federal budget surplus, and the most important problem for the government to address in the coming year. Several questions asked how much attention respondents were paying to the 2000 presidential campaign, the likelihood that they would vote in the Republican or Democratic primary, which candidate they expected to win the nomination for each party, and for whom they would vote in the presidential primary and general election. Respondents were asked for their opinions of Republican presidential candidates George W. Bush, John McCain, and Alan Keyes, Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and Bill Bradley, the main reason they held a favorable or unfavorable opinion of each candidate, and the importance of a candidate's personal qualities and position on issues. Opinions were also solicited of First Lady Hillary Clinton, former President George H.W. Bush, the Democratic, Republican, and Reform parties, and how well members of the United States Congress were handling their jobs. Additional topics included abortion, campaign finance reform, and the effect of elections on the federal government. Information was also collected on the importance of religion on respondents' lives, whether they had access to a computer, Internet access, and e-mail, whether they had served in the United States armed forces, and whether they had a child graduating high school in the class of 2000. Demographic variables include sex, race, age, marital status, household income, education level, religious preference, political party affiliation, political philosophy, voter participation history and registration status, the presence of children and teenagers in the household, and type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural).

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 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.

This Gallup Poll aims to gather the Canadians' opinons of politics. Included is data regarding voting habits, election interest, favoured political parties, and attitudes towards the careers of politicians. Information regarding demographics, geographic location and social class was also collected from the respondents. Topics of interest include: car ownership; family problems; the federal election; phone ownership; political careers for the respondents' sons; political parties; union membership; and voting behaviour. Basic demographics variables are also included.

Database on Party Membership Figures

Principal Investigator: Emilie van Haute

Funding: FNRS (http://www.frs-fnrs.be)

Coverage:

Period: 1946-2014

Countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom

Spatial Units: National level

Unit of analysis: Parties

Unit of observation: Number of party members (M) per party per year

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).

This survey was conducted shortly after the UK general election of December 2019. The survey is the sequel to the Party Members in the UK 2015-2018 study. It covers samples of members of 6 British political parties and the Brexit Party, including 1179 Conservatives, 1357 Labour members, 1028 Liberal Democrats, 1158 Brexit Party supporters and UKIP members, 1023 Green Party, and 1026 SNP members. It includes 166 variables relating to demographics, political attitudes, voting behaviour, campaign activity, and the timing and duration of party membership. It is the first known survey to assess the movement of people between political party memberships in the UK.Members are a vital resource for political parties - particularly at election time. By surveying members of six political parties we explore just what they do for their parties during campaigns and whether that is changing over time, particularly as new forms (often online forms) of campaigning replace (or at least supplement) the old way of doing things. We also find out how members feel about something that has proved particularly controversial at this election owing to story-upon-story of parties having to suspend people from standing - namely the selection (and vetting) of candidates. And we look at the demographic characteristics and attitudes of party members: how much do they vary and change over time, and how representative (or unrepresentative) are members of their parties' voters? Finally, we investigate whether there has been much movement of members between parties, and in particular whether 'Remainers' have moved from the Tories and Labour to parties like the Lib Dems and whether Leavers who might previously have belonged to UKIP (and perhaps support the Brexit Party) have switched to membership of the Conservatives.