Context

Wanted to study does following factors impacted US president elections. I tried to analyse 6 states data out of which four won by democrats and 6 by republicans. The factors are . Education,Health,Poverty/Income,Race(%of whites),Median Age etc.

Content

Here are the columns that are being analyzed.

Average of Republicans 2016 Average of Democrats 2016 Difference(Rep-Dem) Average of Poverty.Rate.below.federal.poverty.threshold Average of Graduate Degree Average of Median Earnings 2010 Average of Gini.Coefficient Average of White (Not Latino) Population Average of School Enrollment Average of Infant.mortality Average of Unemployment Average of median_age Average of Violent.crime

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Opendatasoft https://data.opendatasoft.com/explore/dataset/usa-2016-presidential-election-by-county%40public/information/ for providing data at county level. Data has been rolled up to state level.

Inspiration

Well does perceptions are backed by data or not.

The data contains the educational degree, university , age , weight , married life , no of children , IQ, Wealth and the percentage of the US budget that they spent on defense. The major wars that have happened during their tenure as POTUS.

The Office of the President of the United States (POTUS) was established by the US Constitution in 1789, with George Washington being elected as the first US president. At the time of his presidency, the role of POTUS was largely ceremonial and focused on the administration of the federal government. However, over time, the position grew in power and influence as the US became a global superpower and the demands of the post changed. With the expansion of the executive branch of the government and the development of modern communication and transportation technologies, the role of POTUS became even more significant. The US president now plays a central role in shaping policy, implementing agendas, and representing the country on the world stage. Throughout history, the POTUS has also been involved in many historical events and crises, such as the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, the civil rights movement, and the War on Terror. Each president has brought their unique set of values, leadership style, and vision for the country, shaping the office and the nation in their own way.

The POTUS is the most powerful political figure in the United States, responsible for shaping domestic and foreign policy, appointing federal judges and other officials, and representing the country both at home and abroad. The US president is elected to a four-year term and can serve a maximum of two terms under the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution. The role and responsibilities of the POTUS have evolved over time, reflecting the changing needs and expectations of the American people and the world at large.

This dataset provides county and congressional district–level returns for U.S. House of Representatives general elections, compiled by Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. For each election year included, the dataset is distributed as an Excel workbook (.xlsx) with multiple worksheets, accompanied by machine-readable CSV files at the county, congressional district, and state levels. The codebook for the data collection, describing variable names and meanings, is provided as an .rtf file.The Excel workbook contains:Candidates – names and party ballot listings by state.Vote Data by State – statewide vote totals for each candidate, with boundary identifiers (FIPS codes).Vote Data by County – county-level vote totals for all states and the District of Columbia, with FIPS codes.Vote Data by Town – town-level results for New England states (ME, MA, CT, RI, VT, NH), with FIPS codes.Vote Data by Congressional District – vote totals for all congressional districts nationwide.Graphs – pie charts summarizing results by state and nationally.Party – statewide vote strength of major parties.Statistics – summary statistics including closest races, maxima, and other aggregate indicators.Voter Turnout by State – voting-age population and turnout data by state.Data Sources – documentation of sources used to compile the dataset.

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.

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

The module was administered as a post-election interview. The resulting data are provided along with voting, demographic, district and macro variables in a single dataset.

CSES Variable List The list of variables is being provided on the CSES Website to help in understanding what content is available from CSES, and to compare the content available in each module.

Themes: MICRO-LEVEL DATA:

Identification and study administration variables: weighting factors;election type; date of election 1st and 2nd round; study timing (post election study, pre-election and post-election study, between rounds of majoritarian election); mode of interview; gender of interviewer; date questionnaire administered; primary electoral district of respondent; number of days the interview was conducted after the election

Demography: age; gender; education; marital status; union membership; union membership of others in household; current employment status; main occupation; employment type - public or private; industrial sector; occupation of chief wage earner and of spouse; household income; number of persons in household; number of children in household under the age of 18; attendance at religious services; religiosity; religious denomination; language usually spoken at home; race; ethnicity; region of residence; rural or urban residence

Survey variables: respondent cast a ballot at the current and the previous election; respondent cast candidate preference vote at the previous election; satisfaction with the democratic process in the country; last election was conducted fairly; form of questionnaire (long or short); party identification; intensity of party identification; political parties care what people think; political parties are necessary; recall of candidates from the last election (name, gender and party); number of candidates correctly named; sympathy scale for selected parties and political leaders; assessment of the state of the economy in the country; assessment of economic development in the country; degree of improvement or deterioration of economy; politicians know what people think; contact with a member of parliament or congress during the past twelve months; attitude towards selected statements: it makes a difference who is in power and who people vote for; people express their political opinion; self-assessment on a left-right-scale; assessment of parties and political leaders on a left-right-scale; political information items

DISTRICT-LEVEL DATA:

number of seats contested in electoral district; number of candidates; number of party lists; percent vote of different parties; official voter turnout in electoral district

MACRO-LEVEL DATA:

founding year of parties; ideological families of parties; international organization the parties belong to; left-right position of parties assigned by experts; election outcomes by parties in current (lower house/upper house) legislative election; percent of seats in lower house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of seats in upper house received by parties in current lower house/upper house election; percent of votes received by presidential candidate of parties in current elections; electoral turnout; electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign; existing electoral alliances; most salient factors in the election; head of state (regime type); if multiple rounds: selection of head of state; direct election of head of state and process of direct election; threshold for first-round victory; procedure for candidate selection at final round; simple majority or absolute majority for 2nd round victory; year of presidential election (before or after this legislative election); process if indirect election of head of state; head of government (president or prime minister); selection of prime minister; number of elected legislative chambers; for lower and upper houses was coded: number of electoral segments; number of primary districts; number of seats; district magnitude (number of members elected from each district); number of secondary and tertiary electoral districts; compulsory voting; votes cast; voting procedure; electoral formula; party threshold; parties can run joint lists; requirements for joint party lists; possibility of apparentement; types of apparentement agreements; multi-party endorsements; multi-party endorsements on ballot; ally party support; constitu...

There is a vast amount of literature in different disciplines, such as economics, political science, and data science, about what factors affect the prediction of election outcomes. Various data are being considered to predict the election results, such as social media posts, survey results, referendum judgments, etc.

There are various sources, such as fundamental variables, to predict election results, especially in the United States. Fundamentals refer to variables independent of the current election rhetoric, the campaign performance of a candidate immediately before an election, or social media posts. Fundamental variables include individuals' annual income, annual total family income, age, gender, marital status, race, citizenship status, language spoken at home, education level, and employment status at the individual level. Using these fundamental variables, we aim to determine whether we can predict election outcomes.

Datasets and demographic information are scraped and merged from the US Census website (https://usa.ipums.org/usa/) and MIT Election Data + Science Lab (https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/VOQCHQ).

This dataset is aimed at highlighting the potential for predicting the United States presidential election outcomes at the county level based on the fundamental variables acquired from the American Community Survey data (ACS).

This study focuses on national issues and Kosovo. Topics addressed include issues and ratings, Presidential election 2000 (Bush vs Gore), Kosovo, national trends, 'Feel Good' index, and baseball teams. Background questions include presence of adults and children in the household, sex, age, education, presence of handicap among household members, ideology, income, Hispanic origin, race and number of telephone lines in the household.

Abstract (en): The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether election night reporting of presidential election results affected voter turnout in the 1980 United States election. The study gathered information on what time of day respondents voted, whether they had heard early reports of election results, and when they heard such reports. The dataset also includes variables used to assess likelihood of voting, including education, region, partisan strength, and feelings of citizen duty, as well as vote validation variables indicating the respondent's registration status and whether he or she voted. This study used part of the sample from the AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1980 (ICPSR 7763). A brief telephone interview was conducted in January 1981 with individuals who participated in that study's Minor Panel (C1-C4) and Traditional Time Series samples (C3-C3po), and who agreed to be reinterviewed and could be reached by telephone. Vote validation variables and variables used to assess the likelihood of voting were drawn from the Integrated File of ICPSR 7763. This dataset can be merged with the entire Integrated File to permit analysis using the full data gathered for these respondents. Merging instructions are included in the machine-readable documentation for this study. Demographic information collected on respondents includes age, educational attainment, and political party affiliation. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Respondents from the AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1980 (ICPSR 7763) who had agreed to be reinterviewed and could be contacted by telephone. The AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY samples were cross-sectional samples of United States citizens of voting age on November 4, 1980.

The New York Times and CBS News were equal partners in a series of election surveys covering the 1980 election year. The content of this data collection generally concerns the presidential preference of respondents, their reasons for choosing a particular candidate, and their reactions to political and social issues of the campaign. There are 28 datasets in the collection, which fall into three categories: national monthly surveys, primary day surveys, and the election day survey. Parts 1-12 contain national monthly surveys that were conducted by telephone, with approximately 1,500 randomly selected adults in each. Surveys were conducted in January, February, March, April, June, August, September, and October. Two telephone surveys were conducted in September, a pre-debate survey and a post-debate survey. Also, two surveys were conducted in October. A post-election survey was conducted in the days following the election. For the post-election survey, the respondents in Part 11, October Pre-Election National Interviews, were reinterviewed. The post-election survey is released as a panel file and incorporates Part 11 responses as well. Parts 13-27 contain primary day surveys that were conducted in 11 states on the day of the primary at the polling place among a random sample of people who had just voted in either the Democratic or Republican presidential primaries. The questionnaires were self-administered. Surveys were conducted in the following states: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Florida, Illinois, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey, and Ohio. There are separate data files for the Democratic and Republican primaries in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Demographic information including age, sex, income, race, ethnicity, and occupation is provided for all respondents in Parts 1-27. Part 28 contains a survey conducted on the day of the presidential election. A national sample of voters was administered a questionnaire similar to those given on primary day. Selected voters were asked for whom they had voted and why. Information on time of voting and respondent's sex and race was filled out by the interviewer.

Intro

Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. Eligibility varies by country, and the voting-eligible population should not be confused with the total adult population. Age and citizenship status are often among the criteria used to determine eligibility, but some countries further restrict eligibility based on sex, race, or religion.

Context

The historical trends in voter turnout in the United States presidential elections have been determined by the gradual expansion of voting rights from the initial restriction to white male property owners aged 21 or older in the early years of the country's independence, to all citizens aged 18 or older in the mid-20th century. Voter turnout in United States presidential elections has historically been higher than the turnout for midterm elections. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/U.S._Vote_for_President_as_Population_Share.png" alt="f">

Content

Turnout rates by demographic breakdown from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, November Voting and Registration Supplement (or CPS for short). This table are corrected for vote overreporting bias. For uncorrected weights see the source link.

Original source: https://data.world/government/vep-turnout

AP VoteCast is a survey of the American electorate conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for Fox News, NPR, PBS NewsHour, Univision News, USA Today Network, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press.

AP VoteCast combines interviews with a random sample of registered voters drawn from state voter files with self-identified registered voters selected using nonprobability approaches. In general elections, it also includes interviews with self-identified registered voters conducted using NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak® panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population.

Interviews are conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents may receive a small monetary incentive for completing the survey. Participants selected as part of the random sample can be contacted by phone and mail and can take the survey by phone or online. Participants selected as part of the nonprobability sample complete the survey online.

In the 2020 general election, the survey of 133,103 interviews with registered voters was conducted between Oct. 26 and Nov. 3, concluding as polls closed on Election Day. AP VoteCast delivered data about the presidential election in all 50 states as well as all Senate and governors’ races in 2020.

Using this Data - IMPORTANT

This is survey data and must be properly weighted during analysis: DO NOT REPORT THIS DATA AS RAW OR AGGREGATE NUMBERS!!

Instead, use statistical software such as R or SPSS to weight the data.

National Survey

The national AP VoteCast survey of voters and nonvoters in 2020 is based on the results of the 50 state-based surveys and a nationally representative survey of 4,141 registered voters conducted between Nov. 1 and Nov. 3 on the probability-based AmeriSpeak panel. It included 41,776 probability interviews completed online and via telephone, and 87,186 nonprobability interviews completed online. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 0.4 percentage points for voters and 0.9 percentage points for nonvoters.

State Surveys

In 20 states in 2020, AP VoteCast is based on roughly 1,000 probability-based interviews conducted online and by phone, and roughly 3,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 2.3 percentage points for voters and 5.5 percentage points for nonvoters.

In an additional 20 states, AP VoteCast is based on roughly 500 probability-based interviews conducted online and by phone, and roughly 2,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for voters and 6.9 percentage points for nonvoters.

In the remaining 10 states, AP VoteCast is based on about 1,000 nonprobability interviews conducted online. In these states, the margin of sampling error is about plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for voters and 11.0 percentage points for nonvoters.

Although there is no statistically agreed upon approach for calculating margins of error for nonprobability samples, these margins of error were estimated using a measure of uncertainty that incorporates the variability associated with the poll estimates, as well as the variability associated with the survey weights as a result of calibration. After calibration, the nonprobability sample yields approximately unbiased estimates.

As with all surveys, AP VoteCast is subject to multiple sources of error, including from sampling, question wording and order, and nonresponse.

Sampling Details

Probability-based Registered Voter Sample

In each of the 40 states in which AP VoteCast included a probability-based sample, NORC obtained a sample of registered voters from Catalist LLC’s registered voter database. This database includes demographic information, as well as addresses and phone numbers for registered voters, allowing potential respondents to be contacted via mail and telephone. The sample is stratified by state, partisanship, and a modeled likelihood to respond to the postcard based on factors such as age, race, gender, voting history, and census block group education. In addition, NORC attempted to match sampled records to a registered voter database maintained by L2, which provided additional phone numbers and demographic information.

Prior to dialing, all probability sample records were mailed a postcard inviting them to complete the survey either online using a unique PIN or via telephone by calling a toll-free number. Postcards were addressed by name to the sampled registered voter if that individual was under age 35; postcards were addressed to “registered voter” in all other cases. Telephone interviews were conducted with the adult that answered the phone following confirmation of registered voter status in the state.

Nonprobability Sample

Nonprobability participants include panelists from Dynata or Lucid, including members of its third-party panels. In addition, some registered voters were selected from the voter file, matched to email addresses by V12, and recruited via an email invitation to the survey. Digital fingerprint software and panel-level ID validation is used to prevent respondents from completing the AP VoteCast survey multiple times.

AmeriSpeak Sample

During the initial recruitment phase of the AmeriSpeak panel, randomly selected U.S. households were sampled with a known, non-zero probability of selection from the NORC National Sample Frame and then contacted by mail, email, telephone and field interviewers (face-to-face). The panel provides sample coverage of approximately 97% of the U.S. household population. Those excluded from the sample include people with P.O. Box-only addresses, some addresses not listed in the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence File and some newly constructed dwellings. Registered voter status was confirmed in field for all sampled panelists.

Weighting Details

AP VoteCast employs a four-step weighting approach that combines the probability sample with the nonprobability sample and refines estimates at a subregional level within each state. In a general election, the 50 state surveys and the AmeriSpeak survey are weighted separately and then combined into a survey representative of voters in all 50 states.

State Surveys

First, weights are constructed separately for the probability sample (when available) and the nonprobability sample for each state survey. These weights are adjusted to population totals to correct for demographic imbalances in age, gender, education and race/ethnicity of the responding sample compared to the population of registered voters in each state. In 2020, the adjustment targets are derived from a combination of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s November 2018 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, Catalist’s voter file and the Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey. Prior to adjusting to population totals, the probability-based registered voter list sample weights are adjusted for differential non-response related to factors such as availability of phone numbers, age, race and partisanship.

Second, all respondents receive a calibration weight. The calibration weight is designed to ensure the nonprobability sample is similar to the probability sample in regard to variables that are predictive of vote choice, such as partisanship or direction of the country, which cannot be fully captured through the prior demographic adjustments. The calibration benchmarks are based on regional level estimates from regression models that incorporate all probability and nonprobability cases nationwide.

Third, all respondents in each state are weighted to improve estimates for substate geographic regions. This weight combines the weighted probability (if available) and nonprobability samples, and then uses a small area model to improve the estimate within subregions of a state.

Fourth, the survey results are weighted to the actual vote count following the completion of the election. This weighting is done in 10–30 subregions within each state.

National Survey

In a general election, the national survey is weighted to combine the 50 state surveys with the nationwide AmeriSpeak survey. Each of the state surveys is weighted as described. The AmeriSpeak survey receives a nonresponse-adjusted weight that is then adjusted to national totals for registered voters that in 2020 were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s November 2018 Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement, the Catalist voter file and the Census Bureau’s 2018 American Community Survey. The state surveys are further adjusted to represent their appropriate proportion of the registered voter population for the country and combined with the AmeriSpeak survey. After all votes are counted, the national data file is adjusted to match the national popular vote for president.

According to exit polling in ten key states of the 2024 presidential election in the United States, 46 percent of voters with a 2023 household income of 30,000 U.S. dollars or less reported voting for Donald Trump. In comparison, 51 percent of voters with a total family income of 100,000 to 199,999 U.S. dollars reported voting for Kamala Harris.

Wahlverhalten, Fragen zum politischen System, Einstellungen zupolitischen Parteien. Themen: Entwicklungsrichtung Serbiens und der Staatengemeinschaft vonSerbien und Montenegro; Zufriedenheit mit dem Lebensstandard, derAktivität der politischen Oppositionsführern und Parteien, zukünftigeethnische Beziehungen in Serbien, Menschenrechte und Freiheiten,ökonomischen Situation, Lösung des Problems im Kosovo, Beziehungenzwischen Serbien und Montenegro, Kampf des Staates gegen Kriminalitätund Korruption, Privatisierung, Kampf gegen die Inflation; wichtigstesProblem im Land; Ergebnisse der Reform; Vertrauen in Institutionen;vertrauenswürdigste Institution; größte Errungenschaften der neuenBehörden; politische und ökonomische Reformen; Meinung über serbischePolitiker; Wahlentscheidung bei der Präsidentschaftswahl 2002;Wichtigkeit der Wahlen im November 2003; Charakteristik des idealenPräsidenten; bester Präsident für Serbien; Wahl eines weniger bekanntenKandidaten; antizipierter Gewinner der Wahlen; Erfolg der Wahlen;Gründe für das Nicht-Wählen; Fähigkeiten der Präsidentschaftskandidatenbezüglich Reformen, Rettung der Wirtschaft und wirtschaftlicheEntwicklung, Verteidigung der nationalen Interessen, Schutz derUnabhängigkeit des Landes, schnelle Verabschiedung der neuenVerfassung, Entwicklung guter Beziehungen mit der internationalenGemeinschaft, bessere Gesetze, Recht und Ordnung, Beziehungen zuMontenegro, Erhaltung der gemeinsamen Staates, Lösung desKosovoproblems, internationale Beziehungen, ökonomische Hilfe aus demAusland, Lebensstandard, Überwindung der Armut und Arbeitslosigkeit undbessere Zukunft für die Menschen; Charakteristik derPräsidentschaftskandidaten und Kritik an ihnen; Wahlabsicht;bevorzugtes Datum für die Wahlen zum Parlament; Sonntagsfrage;bevorzugter Weg der Information über politische Parteien. Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter; Bildung; Beruf; Nationalität;Haushaltsgröße; Haushaltseinkommen; Region. Electoral behaviour, questions on the political system and attitudes towards political parties. Topics: Right or wrong direction of Serbia and State community Serbia and Montenegro; satisfaction with the personal standard of living, the activity of opposition leaders and parties, future inter-ethnic relations in Serbia, civil rights and liberties, economic situation, solving the problem of Kosovo and Metohija, relations of Serbia and Montenegro, fight of the state against crime and corruption, way privatization is conducted, fight of the state against inflation; most important problem in the country; results of the reforms; trusts in institutions (Parliament, government, army, police, judiciary, the Serbian Orthodox Church, OSCE, European Union, United Nations, NATO, Partnership for Peace and The Hague Tribunal); most trusted institution; greatest achievement of new authorities; best party for political/economic reforms; opinion about Serbian politicians; most trusted politician; voting in the Presidential Elections 2002; importance of November 2003 elections; characteristics of ideal president; best president for Serbia; voting for less known candidates; anticipated winner of the election in terms of votes; success or failure of the elections; reasons for not voting; ability of presidential candidates in the fields of reforms, recovery of economy and economic development, protection of national interests, preservation of independence of our country, faster passing of the new Constitution of Serbia, development of good relations with international community, better laws, justice and order, relations with Montenegro, preservation of joint state, solving the problem of Kosovo and Metohija, international relations, economic aid and loans from abroad, improving the standard of living, relieving the problem of unemployment and poverty, better future for people, and uniting the citizens in order to regenerate society; characteristics of presidential candidates; criticisms on the account of presidential candidates; voting in the presidential elections; preferred date for holding the Elections for Serbian Parliament ; Sunday question; preferred way of information on political parties. Demography: Gender, age; education; occupation; nationality; number of household members; household´s income; region.