At the parliamentary election in 2021 in Norway, the environment was seen as the most important issue by the voters. Nearly ********* of the respondents saw this as the most important issue facing Norway. Taxation, health care policy, and social redistribution followed behind.

Immigration was seen as the most important issue facing Germany in July 2025, selected by 29 percent of people as a problem that month. The Economy was seen by 25 percent of people in Germany as a major issue, and was the second most-common response in the most recent survey. Germany's economic struggles Once the economic powerhouse of Europe, the Germany economy has been struggling for several years, and even shrank in 2023 and 2024. In part, this is due to external factors, such as the War in Ukraine putting an end to Germany's supply of cheap Russian gas, and a more protectionist global trade environment harming Germany's export-driven businesses. On the other hand, there has been a chronic lack of investment in the country, in part due to fiscal restraints built into the German constitution. Collapse of the traffic light coalition The issue of removing these fiscal restraints, in particular the "debt-brake", was the eventual reason that brought down the government of Olaf Scholz in late 2024. In power since the 2021 election, Scholz's government consisted of three political parties, Scholz's own SPD, the German Greens, and the pro-businesses FDP. The contradictions inherent in a three-party coalition eventually rose to the surface in late 2024, when the FDP leadership split with the government over economic policy, causing the collapse of the government. All three parties saw their vote share decline considerably, in the subsequent election in February 2025, with the FDP unable to clear the five percent threshold required to win seats in parliament.

The Politbarometer has been conducted since 1977 on an almost monthly basis by the Research Group for Elections (Forschungsgruppe Wahlen) for the Second German Television (ZDF). Since 1990, this database has also been available for the new German states. The survey focuses on the opinions and attitudes of the voting population in the Federal Republic on current political topics, parties, politicians, and voting behavior. From 1990 to 1995 and from 1999 onward, the Politbarometer surveys were conducted separately in the eastern and western federal states (Politbarometer East and Politbarometer West). The separate monthly surveys of a year are integrated into a cumulative data set that includes all surveys of a year and all variables of the respective year. The Politbarometer short surveys, collected with varying frequency throughout the year, are integrated into the annual cumulation starting from 2003.

In a survey conducted among Southeast Asians in 2025, the biggest concern respondents held about ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) for 2025 was the perceived inability of ASEAN to cope with fluid political and economic developments. The share of respondents concerned about ASEAN being unable to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic decreased significantly compared to the previous year.

The study on the 2021 state election in Saxony-Anhalt was conducted by Forschungsgruppe Wahlen. During the survey period from May 31, 2021 to June 3, 2021, 1471 eligible voters in Saxony-Anhalt were interviewed by telephone (CATI) on the following topics: Political opinion: Parties. Top candidates. Problems and competencies. Electoral decision in the context of candidate preference and party competence. Respondents were selected by a multistage random sample. Most important political issues in Saxony-Anhalt; intention to vote in the state election in Saxony-Anhalt; preference for polling station or absentee ballot; party preference (first vote, second vote); certainty of one´s voting decision; importance of federal politics for one´s voting decision in the state election in Saxony-Anhalt; interest in the state election; voting behavior in the last state election; coalition preference; attitude towards various coalition constellations: Government of CDU, SPD and Greens, of CDU, SPD and FDP, of CDU, Greens and FDP, and of CDU and AfD; sympathy scalometer for selected parties at federal and state level (CDU, AfD, Left Party, SPD, Greens, FDP and Free Voters); Satisfaction scalometers on the performance of the state government consisting of the CDU, SPD and Greens, the CDU, SPD and Greens in the state government, the performance of the AfD and the Left in opposition in the state parliament, and the performance of the federal government consisting of the CDU/CSU and SPD; Sympathy scalometers for selected top politicians at the state and federal levels; party sympathy; interest in politics; preference for Reiner Haseloff or Oliver Kirchner as prime minister; Split A: Comparison of credibility, likability, and expertise of Reiner Haseloff and Oliver Kirchner (end of Split A); Split B: Evaluation of Reiner Haseloff´s credibility, sympathy and expertise (end of Split B); evaluation of the current economic situation in Saxony-Anhalt; comparison of the economic situation in Saxony-Anhalt with that in the other eastern German states; evaluation of one´s own economic situation; party competencies: most competent party to solve the economic problems in the state, in the areas of school and education policy and on the issue of Corona; Split A: most competent party with regard to better infrastructure in the areas of fast Internet, local public transport, medical care and shopping facilities, in policies on foreigners and with regard to the concerns and problems of East Germans; future viability of the state and most competent party to solve future problems in Saxony-Anhalt (end of split A); split B: Most competent party to create new jobs in Saxony-Anhalt and in the areas of climate protection and social justice (end of split B); assessment of the work of Minister President Reiner Haseloff; assessment of Minister President Reiner Haseloff´s announcement that there will be no political cooperation between the CDU and the AfD after the state election; role of the chancellor candidates from the CDU/CSU (Armin Laschet), SPD (Olaf Scholz) and Greens (Annalena Baerbock) in the respective party´s performance in the state election in Saxony-Anhalt; better or worse policies as a result of AfD participation in the state government in Saxony-Anhalt; opinion on the spread of right-wing extremist ideas in the AfD; agreement with various statements: Split A: the Left does not care enough about the interests of East Germans today, the AfD is the only party that calls the important problems by their names (end of Split A); Split B: In Saxony-Anhalt, there are much more important issues than climate change; East Germans are treated like second-class citizens (end of Split B); outcome of the state election in Saxony-Anhalt says nothing about the outcome of the next federal election; opinion on the consideration of the interests of foreigners living in Germany by politicians; opinion on the Corona measures in force; satisfaction with the Corona crisis management of the federal government and the state government in Saxony-Anhalt; Split B: Satisfaction with Corona crisis management in Saxony-Anhalt in the area of schools and education; satisfaction with vaccination progress in Saxony-Anhalt (end of Split B); fair share of standard of living; preference in elections in general and in times of Corona for polling place, absentee ballot, or not voting. Demography: sex; age (classified); school-leaving qualification or targeted school-leaving qualification; university degree; employment; job security; occupational position; leading position; public service employment; household size; number of persons in household 18 years and older; union member in the household; religious denomination; party affiliation; party identification; city size; voting eligibility. Additionally coded were: ID; weighting factor. Die Studie zur Landtagswahl 2021 in Sachsen-Anhalt wurde von der Forschungsgruppe Wahlen durchgeführt. Im Erhebungszeitraum 31.05.2021 bis 03.06.2021 wurden 1471 Wahlberechtige in Sachsen-Anhalt in telefonischen Interviews (CATI) zu folgenden Themen befragt: Politisches Meinungsbild: Parteien. Spitzenkandidaten. Probleme und Kompetenzen. Wahlentscheidung im Kontext von Kandidatenpräferenz und Parteikompetenz. Die Auswahl der Befragten erfolgte durch eine mehrstufige Zufallsstichprobe. Wichtigste politische Probleme in Sachsen-Anhalt; Wahlbeteiligungsabsicht bei der Landtagswahl in Sachsen-Anhalt; Präferenz für Wahllokal oder Briefwahl; Parteipräferenz (Erststimme, Zweitstimme); Sicherheit der eigenen Wahlentscheidung; Wichtigkeit der Bundespolitik für die eigene Wahlentscheidung bei der Landtagswahl in Sachsen-Anhalt; Interesse an der Landtagswahl; Wahlverhalten bei der letzten Landtagswahl; Koalitionspräferenz; Einstellung zu verschiedenen Koalitionskonstellationen: Regierung aus CDU, SPD und Grünen, aus CDU, SPD und FDP, aus CDU, Grünen und FDP sowie aus CDU und AfD; Sympathie-Skalometer für ausgewählte Parteien auf Bundes- und Landesebene (CDU, AfD, Linke, SPD, Grüne, FDP und Freie Wähler); Zufriedenheits-Skalometer zu den Leistungen der Landesregierung aus CDU, SPD und Grünen, der CDU, der SPD und der Grünen in der Landesregierung, den Leistungen der AfD und der Linken in der Opposition im Landtag sowie zu den Leistungen der Bundesregierung aus CDU/CSU und SPD; Sympathie-Skalometer für ausgewählte Spitzenpolitiker auf Landes- und auf Bundesebene; Parteisympathie; Politikinteresse; Präferenz für Reiner Haseloff oder Oliver Kirchner als Ministerpräsident; Split A: Vergleich der Glaubwürdigkeit, der Sympathie und des Sachverstands von Reiner Haseloff und Oliver Kirchner (Ende Split A); Split B: Bewertung der Glaubwürdigkeit, der Sympathie und des Sachverstands von Reiner Haseloff (Ende Split B); Beurteilung der derzeitigen wirtschaftlichen Lage in Sachsen-Anhalt; Vergleich der wirtschaftlichen Lage in Sachsen-Anhalt mit der in den übrigen ostdeutschen Bundesländern; Beurteilung der eigenen wirtschaftlichen Lage; Parteikompetenzen: kompetenteste Partei zur Lösung der wirtschaftlichen Probleme im Land, in den Bereichen Schul- und Bildungspolitik sowie beim Thema Corona; Split A: kompetenteste Partei im Hinblick auf bessere Infrastruktur in den Bereichen schnelles Internet, öffentlicher Nahverkehr, ärztliche Versorgung und Einkaufsmöglichkeiten, in der Ausländerpolitik sowie im Hinblick auf die Sorgen und Probleme der Ostdeutschen; Zukunftsfähigkeit des Landes und kompetenteste Partei zur Lösung der zukünftigen Probleme in Sachsen-Anhalt (Ende Split A); Split B: kompetenteste Partei zur Schaffung neuer Arbeitsplätze in Sachsen-Anhalt und in den Bereichen Klimaschutz und soziale Gerechtigkeit (Ende Split B); Beurteilung der Arbeit von Ministerpräsident Reiner Haseloff; Bewertung der Ankündigung von Ministerpräsident Reiner Haseloff, dass es nach der Landtagswahl keine politische Zusammenarbeit der CDU mit der AfD geben wird; Rolle der Kanzlerkandidaten von CDU/CSU (Armin Laschet), SPD (Olaf Scholz) und Grünen (Annalena Baerbock) für das Abschneiden der jeweiligen Partei bei der Landtagswahl in Sachsen-Anhalt; bessere oder schlechtere Politik durch eine Beteiligung der AfD an der Landesregierung in Sachsen-Anhalt; Meinung zur Verbreitung von rechtsextremem Gedankengut in der AfD; Zustimmung zu verschiedenen Aussagen: Split A: die Linke kümmert sich heute nicht mehr genug um die Interessen der Ostdeutschen, die AfD ist die einzige Partei, die die wichtigen Probleme beim Namen nennt (Ende Split A); Split B: in Sachsen-Anhalt gibt es viel wichtigere Themen als den Klimawandel; die Ostdeutschen werden wie Bürger zweiter Klasse behandelt (Ende Split B); Ausgang der Landtagswahl in Sachsen-Anhalt sagt nichts über den Ausgang der nächsten Bundestagswahl aus; Meinung zur Berücksichtigung der Interessen der in Deutschland lebenden Ausländer durch die Politik; Meinung zu den geltenden Corona-Maßnahmen; Zufriedenheit mit dem Corona-Krisenmanagement der Bundesregierung und der Landesregierung in Sachsen-Anhalt; Split B: Zufriedenheit mit dem Corona-Krisenmanagement in Sachsen-Anhalt im Bereich Schule und Bildung; Zufriedenheit mit den Impffortschritten in Sachsen-Anhalt (Ende Split B); gerechter Anteil am Lebensstandard; Präferenz bei Wahlen generell und in Zeiten von Corona für Wahllokal, Briefwahl oder nicht wählen. Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter (klassiert); Schulabschluss bzw. angestrebter Schulabschluss; Hochschulabschluss; Berufstätigkeit; Sicherheit des Arbeitsplatzes; Haupttätigkeit; Leitungsfunktion; Beschäftigung im öffentlichen Dienst; Haushaltsgröße; Anzahl der Personen im Haushalt ab 18 Jahren; Gewerkschaftsmitglied im Haushalt; Konfession; Parteineigung; Parteiidentifikation; Ortsgröße; Wahlberechtigung. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: ID; Gewichtungsfaktor.

The study on the 2021 state election in Baden-Wuerttemberg was conducted by the Forschungsgruppe Wahlen. During the survey period 08.03.2021 to 12.03.2021, 1154 eligible voters in Baden-Wuerttemberg were interviewed by telephone (CATI) on the following topics: Assessment of parties and politicians for the state election. Political questions. Respondents were selected by a multistage random sample. Most important political issues in Baden-Wuerttemberg; intention to vote in the state election in Baden-Wuerttemberg; preference for polling place or absentee ballot; party preference; certainty of own voting decision; importance of federal politics for own voting decision in the state election in Baden-Wuerttemberg; interest in the state election; voting behavior in the last state election; coalition preference; attitude towards different coalition constellations: Government of Greens and CDU led by the Greens, of CDU and Greens led by the CDU, of Greens and SPD led by the Greens, of Greens, SPD and FDP led by the Greens, and of CDU, SPD and FDP led by the CDU; sympathy scalometer for selected parties at the federal and state level (Greens, CDU, SPD, AfD and FDP); satisfaction scalometers on the performance of the state government of the Greens and CDU, the Greens and CDU in the state government, the performance of the AfD, SPD and FDP in opposition in the state parliament, and the performance of the federal government of CDU/CSU and SPD; sympathy scalometer for selected top politicians at the state level and for Angela Merkel; party sympathy; preference for Winfried Kretschmann or Susanne Eisenmann as Minister President; split B: comparison of credibility, likability and expertise of Winfried Kretschmann and Susanne Eisenmann (end split B); assessment of current economic situation in Baden-Wuerttemberg and own economic situation; party competencies: split A: most competent party to solve economic problems in the state and in the areas of foreigners policy and transport policy in Baden-Wuerttemberg (end split A); split B: most competent party in the areas of school and education policy and climate protection in Baden-Wuerttemberg (end split B); most competent party in the area of Corona; now more important: Strict Corona measures to reduce infection rates vs. far-reaching relaxations to strengthen the economy; future viability of the state and most competent party to solve future problems in Baden-Wuerttemberg; assessment of the work of Minister President Winfried Kretschmann; assessment of the commitment of the state government in Baden-Wuerttemberg to the energy turnaround; Split A: Satisfaction with progress in Baden-Wuerttemberg in the area of digitization and fast Internet (end of Split A); Preference for a state government led by the Greens or a state government led by the CDU; role of CDU leader in the federal government Armin Laschet with regard to the CDU´s performance in the state elections in Baden-Wuerttemberg; Split A: More important, which parties will form the government after the state elections or who will be Minister President (end of Split A); opinion on the spread of extreme right-wing ideas in the AfD; Corona: Satisfaction with Corona crisis management in Baden-Wuerttemberg in general and in the area of school and education; satisfaction with vaccination progress in Baden-Wuerttemberg; assessment of current relaxations in Corona measures; assessment of recent decisions by the federal and state governments on regionally different relaxations or tightenings in Corona measures depending on the level of infection figures; preference in elections in general and in times of Corona for polling station, absentee voting or not voting; fair share of standard of living. Demograpy: sex; age (classified); school-leaving qualification or targeted school-leaving qualification; university degree; employment; job security; occupational position; leading position; public service employment; household size; number of persons in household 18 years and older; union member in the household; religious denomination; church attendance; party affiliation; party identification; city size; voting eligibility. Additionally coded were: ID; weighting factor. Die Studie zur Landtagswahl 2021 in Baden-Württemberg wurde von der Forschungsgruppe Wahlen durchgeführt. Im Erhebungszeitraum 08.03.2021 bis 12.03.2021 wurden 1154 Wahlberechtige in Baden-Württemberg in telefonischen Interviews (CATI) zu folgenden Themen befragt: Beurteilung von Parteien und Politikern zur Landtagswahl. Politische Fragen. Die Auswahl der Befragten erfolgte durch eine mehrstufige Zufallsstichprobe. Wichtigste politische Probleme in Baden-Württemberg; Wahlbeteiligungsabsicht bei der Landtagswahl in Baden-Württemberg; Präferenz für Wahllokal oder Briefwahl; Parteipräferenz; Sicherheit der eigenen Wahlentscheidung; Wichtigkeit der Bundespolitik für die eigene Wahlentscheidung bei der Landtagswahl in Baden-Württemberg; Interesse an der Landtagswahl; Wahlverhalten bei der letzten Landtagswahl; Koalitionspräferenz; Einstellung zu verschiedenen Koalitionskonstellationen: Regierung aus Grünen und CDU unter Führung der Grünen, aus CDU und Grünen unter Führung der CDU, aus Grünen und SPD unter Führung der Grünen, aus Grünen, SpD und FDP unter Führung der Grünen sowie aus CDU, SPD und FDP unter Führung der CDU; Sympathie-Skalometer für ausgewählte Parteien auf Bundes- und Landesebene (Grüne, CDU, SPD, AfD und FDP); Zufriedenheits-Skalometer zu den Leistungen der Landesregierung aus Grünen und CDU, der Grünen und der CDU in der Landesregierung, den Leistungen der AfD, der SPD und der FDP in der Opposition im Landtag sowie zu den Leistungen der Bundesregierung aus CDU/CSU und SPD; Sympathie-Skalometer für ausgewählte Spitzenpolitiker auf Landesebene sowie für Angela Merkel; Parteisympathie; Präferenz für Winfried Kretschmann oder Susanne Eisenmann als Ministerpräsident bzw. Ministerpräsidentin; Split B: Vergleich der Glaubwürdigkeit, der Sympathie und des Sachverstands von Winfried Kretschmann und Susanne Eisenmann (Ende Split B); Beurteilung der derzeitigen wirtschaftlichen Lage in Baden-Württemberg und der eigenen wirtschaftlichen Lage; Parteikompetenzen: Split A: kompetenteste Partei zur Lösung der wirtschaftlichen Probleme im Land sowie in den Bereichen Ausländerpolitik und Verkehrspolitik in Baden-Württemberg (Ende Split A); Split B: kompetenteste Partei in den Bereichen Schul- und Bildungspolitik und Klimaschutz in Baden-Württemberg (Ende Split B); kompetenteste Partei im Bereich Corona; jetzt wichtiger: strenge Corona-Maßnahmen zur Senkung der Infektionszahlen vs, weitgehende Lockerungen zur Stärkung der Wirtschaft; Zukunftsfähigkeit des Landes und kompetenteste Partei zur Lösung der zukünftigen Probleme in Baden-Württemberg; Beurteilung der Arbeit von Ministerpräsident Winfried Kretschmann; Bewertung des Engagements der Landesregierung in Baden-Württemberg für die Energiewende; Split A: Zufriedenheit mit den Fortschritten in Baden-Württemberg im Bereich Digitalisierung und schnelles Internet (Ende Split A); Präferenz für eine von den Grünen geführte Landesregierung oder eine von der CDU geführte Landesregierung; Rolle des CDU-Vorsitzenden im Bund Armin Laschet im Hinblick auf das Abschneiden der CDU bei der Landtagswahl in Baden-Württemberg; Split A: wichtiger, welche Parteien nach der Landtagswahl die Regierung bilden oder wer Ministerpräsident bzw. Ministerpräsidentin wird (Ende Split A); Meinung zur Verbreitung von rechtsextremem Gedankengut in der AfD; Corona: Zufriedenheit mit dem Corona-Krisenmanagement in Baden-Württemberg allgemein und im Bereich Schule und Bildung; Zufriedenheit mit den Impffortschritten in Baden-Württemberg; Bewertung der geltenden Lockerungen bei den Corona-Maßnahmen; Bewertung der neuesten Beschlüsse von Bund und Ländern zu regional unterschiedlichen Lockerungen oder Verschärfungen bei Corona-Maßnahmen abhängig von der Höhe der Infektionszahlen; Präferenz bei Wahlen generell und in Zeiten von Corona für Wahllokal, Briefwahl oder nicht wählen; gerechter Anteil am Lebensstandard. Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter (klassiert); Schulabschluss bzw. angestrebter Schulabschluss; Hochschulabschluss; Berufstätigkeit; Sicherheit des Arbeitsplatzes; Haupttätigkeit; Leitungsfunktion; Beschäftigung im öffentlichen Dienst; Haushaltsgröße; Anzahl der Personen im Haushalt ab 18 Jahren; Gewerkschaftsmitglied im Haushalt; Konfession; Kirchgangshäufigkeit; Parteineigung; Parteiidentifikation; Ortsgröße; Wahlberechtigung. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: ID; Gewichtungsfaktor.

The economy was seen by 52 percent of people in the UK as one of the top three issues facing the country in July 2025. The ongoing cost of living crisis afflicting the UK, driven by high inflation, is still one of the main concerns of Britons. Immigration has generally been the second most important issue since the middle of 2024, just ahead of health, which was seen as the third-biggest issue in the most recent month. Labour's popularity continues to sink in 2025 Despite winning the 2024 general election with a strong majority, the new Labour government has had its share of struggles since coming to power. Shortly after taking office, the approval rating for Labour stood at -2 percent, but this fell throughout the second half of 2024, and by January 2025 had sunk to a new low of -47 percent. Although this was still higher than the previous government's last approval rating of -56 percent, it is nevertheless a severe review from the electorate. Among several decisions from the government, arguably the least popular was the government withdrawing winter fuel payments. This state benefit, previously paid to all pensioners, is now only paid to those on low incomes, with millions of pensioners not receiving this payment in winter 2024. Sunak's pledges fail to prevent defeat in 2024 With an election on the horizon, and the Labour Party consistently ahead in the polls, addressing voter concerns directly was one of the best chances the Conservatives had of staying in power in 2023. At the start of that year, Rishi Sunak attempted to do this by setting out his five pledges for the next twelve months; halve inflation, grow the economy, reduce national debt, cut NHS waiting times, and stop small boats. A year later, Sunak had at best only partial success in these aims. Although the inflation rate fell, economic growth was weak and even declined in the last two quarters of 2023, although it did return to growth in early 2024. National debt was only expected to fall in the mid to late 2020s, while the trend of increasing NHS waiting times did not reverse. Small boat crossings were down from 2022, but still higher than in 2021 or 2020. .

The average for 2023 based on 193 countries was -0.07 points. The highest value was in Liechtenstein: 1.61 points and the lowest value was in Syria: -2.75 points. The indicator is available from 1996 to 2023. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

The study on the 2021 state election in Rhineland-Palatinate was conducted by the Forschungsgruppe Wahlen. During the survey period 08.03.2021 to 12.03.2021, 1117 eligible voters in Rhineland-Palatinate were interviewed by telephone (CATI) on the following topics: Political opinion: Parties. Top candidates. Problems and competencies. Electoral decision in the context of candidate preference and party competence. The respondents were selected by a multi-stage random sample. Most important political issues in Rhineland-Palatinate; intention to vote in the state election in Rhineland-Palatinate; preference for polling station or absentee ballot; party preference (first vote, second vote); certainty of one´s own voting decision; importance of federal politics for one´s own voting decision in the state election in Rhineland-Palatinate; interest in the state election; voting behavior in the last state election; coalition preference; attitude towards various coalition constellations: Government of SPD and Greens, of CDU and Greens, of SPD, Greens and FDP, of CDU, Greens and FDP, of SPD and CDU led by SPD, and of CDU and SPD led by CDU; sympathy scalometer for selected parties at federal and state level (SPD, CDU, Greens, AfD, FDP and Free Voters); Satisfaction scalometer on the performance of the state government consisting of the SPD, FDP and Greens, the SPD, FDP and Greens in the state government, the performance of the CDU and AfD in opposition in the state parliament, and the performance of the federal government consisting of the CDU/CSU and SPD; Sympathy scalometer for selected top politicians at the state level and for Angela Merkel; party sympathy; preference for Malu Dreyer or Christian Baldauf as Minister President; Split B: Comparison of credibility, likability and expertise of Malu Dreyer and Christian Baldauf (end of Split B); assessment of the current economic situation in Rhineland-Palatinate and the respondent´s own economic situation; party competencies: Split A: Most competent party to solve the economic problems in the state as well as in the areas of foreigner policy and transport policy in Rhineland-Palatinate (end of split A); split B: Most competent party in the areas of school and education policy and climate protection in Rhineland-Palatinate (end of split B); most competent party in the area of Corona; now more important: Strict Corona measures to reduce infection rates vs, far-reaching relaxations to strengthen the economy; future viability of the state and most competent party to solve future problems in Rhineland-Palatinate; assessment of the work of Minister President Malu Dreyer; assessment of the commitment of the state government in Rhineland-Palatinate to the energy transition; Split A: Satisfaction with progress in Rhineland-Palatinate on digitization and fast Internet (end of Split A); Preference for an SPD-led state government or a CDU-led state government; role of CDU leader in the federal government Armin Laschet with regard to the CDU´s performance in the state election in Rhineland-Palatinate; Split A: More important, which parties will form the government after the state elections or who will become Minister President (end of Split A); opinion on the spread of right-wing extremist ideas in the AfD; Corona: Satisfaction with Corona crisis management in Rhineland-Palatinate in general and in the area of schools and education; satisfaction with vaccination progress in Rhineland-Palatinate; assessment of current relaxations in Corona measures; assessment of recent decisions by the federal and state governments on regionally different relaxations or tightenings in Corona measures depending on the level of infection figures; preference in elections in general and in times of Corona for polling station, absentee voting or not voting; fair share of standard of living. Demograpy: sex; age (classified); school-leaving qualification or targeted school-leaving qualification; university degree; employment; job security; occupational position; leading position; public service employment; household size; number of persons in household 18 years and older; union member in the household; religious denomination; church attendance; party affiliation; party identification; city size; voting eligibility. Additionally coded were: ID; weighting factor. Die Studie zur Landtagswahl 2021 in Rheinland-Pfalz wurde von der Forschungsgruppe Wahlen durchgeführt. Im Erhebungszeitraum 08.03.2021 bis 12.03.2021 wurden 1117 Wahlberechtige in Rheinland-Pfalz in telefonischen Interviews (CATI) zu folgenden Themen befragt: Politisches Meinungsbild: Parteien. Spitzenkandidaten. Probleme und Kompetenzen. Wahlentscheidung im Kontext von Kandidatenpräferenz und Parteikompetenz. Die Auswahl der Befragten erfolgte durch eine mehrstufige Zufallsstichprobe. Wichtigste politische Probleme in Rheinland-Pfalz; Wahlbeteiligungsabsicht bei der Landtagswahl in Rheinland-Pfalz; Präferenz für Wahllokal oder Briefwahl; Parteipräferenz (Erststimme, Zweitstimme); Sicherheit der eigenen Wahlentscheidung; Wichtigkeit der Bundespolitik für die eigene Wahlentscheidung bei der Landtagswahl in Rheinland-Pfalz; Interesse an der Landtagswahl; Wahlverhalten bei der letzten Landtagswahl; Koalitionspräferenz; Einstellung zu verschiedenen Koalitionskonstellationen: Regierung aus SPD und Grünen, aus CDU und Grünen, aus SPD, Grünen und FDP, aus CDU, Grünen und FDP, aus SPD und CDU unter Führung der SPD sowie aus CDU und SPD unter Führung der CDU; Sympathie-Skalometer für ausgewählte Parteien auf Bundes- und Landesebene (SPD, CDU, Grüne, AfD, FDP und Freie Wähler); Zufriedenheits-Skalometer zu den Leistungen der Landesregierung aus SPD, FDP und Grünen, der SPD, der FDP und der Grünen in der Landesregierung, den Leistungen der CDU und der AfD in der Opposition im Landtag sowie zu den Leistungen der Bundesregierung aus CDU/CSU und SPD; Sympathie-Skalometer für ausgewählte Spitzenpolitiker auf Landesebene sowie für Angela Merkel; Parteisympathie; Präferenz für Malu Dreyer oder Christian Baldauf als Ministerpräsidentin bzw. Ministerpräsident; Split B: Vergleich der Glaubwürdigkeit, der Sympathie und des Sachverstands von Malu Dreyer und Christian Baldauf (Ende Split B); Beurteilung der derzeitigen wirtschaftlichen Lage in Rheinland-Pfalz und der eigenen wirtschaftlichen Lage; Parteikompetenzen: Split A: kompetenteste Partei zur Lösung der wirtschaftlichen Probleme im Land sowie in den Bereichen Ausländerpolitik und Verkehrspolitik in Rheinland-Pfalz (Ende Split A); Split B: kompetenteste Partei in den Bereichen Schul- und Bildungspolitik und Klimaschutz in Rheinland-Pfalz (Ende Split B); kompetenteste Partei im Bereich Corona; jetzt wichtiger: strenge Corona-Maßnahmen zur Senkung der Infektionszahlen vs, weitgehende Lockerungen zur Stärkung der Wirtschaft; Zukunftsfähigkeit des Landes und kompetenteste Partei zur Lösung der zukünftigen Probleme in Rheinland-Pfalz; Beurteilung der Arbeit von Ministerpräsidentin Malu Dreyer; Bewertung des Engagements der Landesregierung in Rheinland-Pfalz für die Energiewende; Split A: Zufriedenheit mit den Fortschritten in Rheinland-Pfalz im Bereich Digitalisierung und schnelles Internet (Ende Split A); Präferenz für eine von der SPD geführte Landesregierung oder eine von der CDU geführte Landesregierung; Rolle des CDU-Vorsitzenden im Bund Armin Laschet im Hinblick auf das Abschneiden der CDU bei der Landtagswahl in Rheinland-Pfalz; Split A: wichtiger, welche Parteien nach der Landtagswahl die Regierung bilden oder wer Ministerpräsident bzw. Ministerpräsidentin wird (Ende Split A); Meinung zur Verbreitung von rechtsextremem Gedankengut in der AfD; Corona: Zufriedenheit mit dem Corona-Krisenmanagement in Rheinland-Pfalz allgemein und im Bereich Schule und Bildung; Zufriedenheit mit den Impffortschritten in Rheinland-Pfalz; Bewertung der geltenden Lockerungen bei den Corona-Maßnahmen; Bewertung der neuesten Beschlüsse von Bund und Ländern zu regional unterschiedlichen Lockerungen oder Verschärfungen bei Corona-Maßnahmen abhängig von der Höhe der Infektionszahlen; Präferenz bei Wahlen generell und in Zeiten von Corona für Wahllokal, Briefwahl oder nicht wählen; gerechter Anteil am Lebensstandard. Demographie: Geschlecht; Alter (klassiert); Schulabschluss bzw. angestrebter Schulabschluss; Hochschulabschluss; Berufstätigkeit; Sicherheit des Arbeitsplatzes; Haupttätigkeit; Leitungsfunktion; Beschäftigung im öffentlichen Dienst; Haushaltsgröße; Anzahl der Personen im Haushalt ab 18 Jahren; Gewerkschaftsmitglied im Haushalt; Konfession; Kirchgangshäufigkeit; Parteineigung; Parteiidentifikation; Ortsgröße; Wahlberechtigung. Zusätzlich verkodet wurde: ID; Gewichtungsfaktor.

This dataset comprises data on all articles in the new field of historical political economy (HPE) published in from 2010 to 2021 in eight top journals in political science: the American Journal of Political Science, the American Political Science Review, the British Journal of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, Comparative Politics, the Journal of Politics, the Quarterly Journal of Political Science, and World Politics. We define political economy as work that either uses formal theory or empirically tests falsifiable arguments using quantitative methods. We classify work that uses the tools of political economy as HPE if it substantially or exclusively examines politics prior to 1945: the end of the Second World War, the onset of the Cold War, the moment when the Bretton Woods system came into effect, and the start of decolonization in Africa and Asia. We make an exception for China, where important institutional changes occurred after the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949 and the Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1976. The dataset includes full citation, time period, region and country of study, topic, and keywords. We also code each article as one of three types: work that seeks to understand the past for its own sake, work that uses history as a way to understand the present, and work that uses history as a setting to investigate important theoretical issues.

Changelog:

Update September 20, 2021: Data and overview updated to reflect data used in the September 15 story Over Half of States Have Rolled Back Public Health Powers in Pandemic. It includes 303 state or local public health leaders who resigned, retired or were fired between April 1, 2020 and Sept. 12, 2021. Previous versions of this dataset reflected data used in the Dec. 2020 and April 2021 stories.

Overview

Across the U.S., state and local public health officials have found themselves at the center of a political storm as they combat the worst pandemic in a century. Amid a fractured federal response, the usually invisible army of workers charged with preventing the spread of infectious disease has become a public punching bag.

In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, at least 303 state or local public health leaders in 41 states have resigned, retired or been fired since April 1, 2020, according to an ongoing investigation by The Associated Press and KHN.

According to experts, that is the largest exodus of public health leaders in American history.

Many left due to political blowback or pandemic pressure, as they became the target of groups that have coalesced around a common goal — fighting and even threatening officials over mask orders and well-established public health activities like quarantines and contact tracing. Some left to take higher profile positions, or due to health concerns. Others were fired for poor performance. Dozens retired. An untold number of lower level staffers have also left.

The result is a further erosion of the nation’s already fragile public health infrastructure, which KHN and the AP documented beginning in 2020 in the Underfunded and Under Threat project.

Findings

The AP and KHN found that:

• One in five Americans live in a community that has lost its local public health department leader during the pandemic
• Top public health officials in 28 states have left state-level departments ## Using this data To filter for data specific to your state, use this query

To get total numbers of exits by state, broken down by state and local departments, use this query

Methodology

KHN and AP counted how many state and local public health leaders have left their jobs between April 1, 2020 and Sept. 12, 2021.

The government tasks public health workers with improving the health of the general population, through their work to encourage healthy living and prevent infectious disease. To that end, public health officials do everything from inspecting water and food safety to testing the nation’s babies for metabolic diseases and contact tracing cases of syphilis.

Many parts of the country have a health officer and a health director/administrator by statute. The analysis counted both of those positions if they existed. For state-level departments, the count tracks people in the top and second-highest-ranking job.

The analysis includes exits of top department officials regardless of reason, because no matter the reason, each left a vacancy at the top of a health agency during the pandemic. Reasons for departures include political pressure, health concerns and poor performance. Others left to take higher profile positions or to retire. Some departments had multiple top officials exit over the course of the pandemic; each is included in the analysis.

Reporters compiled the exit list by reaching out to public health associations and experts in every state and interviewing hundreds of public health employees. They also received information from the National Association of City and County Health Officials, and combed news reports and records.

Public health departments can be found at multiple levels of government. Each state has a department that handles these tasks, but most states also have local departments that either operate under local or state control. The population served by each local health department is calculated using the U.S. Census Bureau 2019 Population Estimates based on each department’s jurisdiction.

KHN and the AP have worked since the spring on a series of stories documenting the funding, staffing and problems around public health. A previous data distribution detailed a decade's worth of cuts to state and local spending and staffing on public health. That data can be found here.

Attribution

Findings and the data should be cited as: "According to a KHN and Associated Press report."

Is Data Missing?

If you know of a public health official in your state or area who has left that position between April 1, 2020 and Sept. 12, 2021 and isn't currently in our dataset, please contact authors Anna Maria Barry-Jester annab@kff.org, Hannah Recht hrecht@kff.org, Michelle Smith mrsmith@ap.org and Lauren Weber laurenw@kff.org.

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F12064410%2F466e70c347974ab1f64280395bb45974%2Fpolitical%20polarization%20flag.png?generation=1677875491440013&alt=media" alt="">

52,540 DAYS (March 4th, 1879 to January 7th, 2023)

This is a dataset that tracks political polarization in US Congress (46th to 117th) through proportions from 1879 to 2023.

All data are official figures from Voteview that have been compiled and structured by myself. Ideological positions are calculated using the DW-NOMINATE (Dynamic Weighted NOMINAl Three-step Estimation). This procedure was developed by Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the 1980s and is a "scaling procedure", representing legislators on a spatial map. In this sense, a spatial map is much like a road map--the closeness of two legislators on the map shows how similar their voting records are. Using this measure of distance, DW-NOMINATE is able to recover the "dimensions" that inform congressional voting behavior.

Why did I create this dataset? In my personal opinion, political polarization is the greatest threat to democracy today, particularly in America. Polarization not only creates an "US VS THEM" situation, but also renders legislative bodies less effective at passing meaningful legislation. By uploading time-series data regarding American polarization over the past two centuries, I hope that the community will use my dataset to determine insightful statistical trends. Achieving a quantitative yet objective viewpoint of political polarization is crucial to understanding both its underlying causes and its everlasting effects.

IMPORTANT:

The first dimension picks up differences in ideolology, which is represented through the "liberal" vs. "conservative" (also referred to as "left" vs. "right") proportions throughout American history. The second dimension picks up differences within the major political parties over slavery, currency, nativism, civil rights, and lifestyle issues during periods of American history.

Data Sources

The primary data source used was Voteview's official website, which publishes ideological data pertaining to America. Considering the meticulous documentation of congressional activities by such an accredited organization, no other organization is more equipped to provide insight on US polarization.

1. Voteview's Realtime NOMINATE Ideology and Related Data - Voteview's download links for NOMINATE scores, tutorials for generating ancillary data, and other publicly available databases are stored here.
2. Voteview's "Polarization in Congress" Data Analysis - Jeff Lewis, the project lead of Voteview, published a data analysis of the available polarization data. The detailed work gave insight into the true analytical potential of the dataset, and inspired many elements of my accompanying notebook.
3. Voteview's "The Polarization of the Congressional Parties" - Voteview released a detailed overview of their polarization data, the methodology behind their data, and the proper definitions and terminologies for the variables tracked. The guide mainly provided essential contextual knowledge needed to create a meaningful dataset.

Statistics Being Tracked

• Chamber (House or Senate)
• Congress (Number)
• Year (First Year of Congress)
• Party.mean.diff.d1 (Difference in Party Means - First Dimension)
• Prop.moderate.d1 (Proportion Moderates)
• Prop.moderate.dem.d1 (Proportion of Moderate Democrats (-0.25 to +0.25))
• Prop.moderate.rep.d1 (Proportion of Moderate Republicans (-0.25 to +0.25))
• Overlap
• Chamber.mean.d1 (Chamber Mean - First Dimension)
• Chamber.mean.d2 (Chamber Mean - Second Dimension)
• Dem.mean.d1 (Democratic Party Mean - First Dimension)
• Dem.mean.d2 (Democratic Party Mean - Second Dimension)
• Rep.mean.d1 (Republican Party Mean - First Dimension)
• Rep.mean.d2 (Republican Party Mean - Second Dimension)
• North.rep.mean.d1 (Northern Republican Mean - First Dimension)
• North.rep.mean.d2 (Northern Republican Mean - Second Dimension)
• South.rep.mean.d1 (Southern Republican Mean - First Dimension)
• South.rep.mean.d2 (Southern Republican Mean - Second Dimension)
• North.dem.mean.d1 (Northern Democrat Mean - First Dimension)
• North.dem.mean.d2 (Northern Democrat Mean - Second Dimension)
• South.dem.mean.d1 (Southern Democrat Mean - First Dimension)
• South.dem.mean.d2 (Southern Democrat Mean - Second Dimension)

Dataset History

2023-03-03 - Dataset is created (52,595 days after temporal coverage start date).

GitHub Repository - The same data but on GitHub.

Polarization Plots Notebook

[Link to Notebook](h...

Inflation was the most worrying topic worldwide as of May 2025, with ********* of the respondents choosing that option. Crime and violence, as well as poverty and social inequality, followed behind. Moreover, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the war in Gaza, *** percent of the respondents were worried about military conflict between nations. Only *** percent were worried about the COVID-19 pandemic, which dominated the world after its outbreak in 2020. Global inflation and rising prices Inflation rates have spiked substantially since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. From 2020 to 2021, the worldwide inflation rate increased from *** percent to *** percent, and from 2021 to 2022, the rate increased sharply from *** percent to *** percent. While rates are predicted to fall by 2025, many are continuing to struggle with price increases on basic necessities. Poverty and global development Poverty and social inequality were the third most worrying issues for respondents. While poverty and inequality are still prominent, global poverty rates have been on a steady decline over the years. In 1994, ** percent of people in low-income countries and around one percent of people in high-income countries lived on less than 2.15 U.S. dollars per day. By 2018, this had fallen to almost ** percent of people in low-income countries and 0.6 percent in high-income countries. Moreover, fewer people globally are dying of preventable diseases, and people are living longer lives. Despite these aspects, issues such as wealth inequality have global prominence.

Some questions were asked in a split, i.e. only to about half of the respondents at a time.

Approximately 27 percent of people in Germany would vote for the CDU in a potential federal election as of August 2025, compared with 23 percent who would vote AfD and 15 percent who would vote for SPD. The Ampel's woes continue in 2024 The Ampel coalition came to power in 2021 due to the surprise surge in support for the Social Democrats, who secured almost 26 percent of the vote in that election. Unwilling to re-enter a 'grand coalition' with the Christian Democrats, the SPD instead opted to create a coalition with the center-left environmentalist party, the Greens, and the free-market neoliberal party, the FDP. This unlikely coalition which promised to "dare to make more progress" (mehr Fortschritt wagen) has instead been mired by constant infighting between the three parties, as well as being hit by several external crises, most notably Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. At the same time, the German economy's post-pandemic recovery has faltered, with the country being one of the few European countries to experience a recession in 2023, while one of the government's key economic plans - a special investment fund designed to bypass the constitutional debt brake - was struck down by the constitutional court in Karlsruhe. These factors have led to consistently declining support for the three governing parties, with the latest poll showing their combined share of the vote being only 33 percent, slightly more than the vote share of the Christian Democrats. While the Greens' vote share would remain roughly equal to what they achieved in 2021, the popularity of the SPD and FDP has collapsed compared to their 2021 levels. The Social Democrats are now the third most popular party in Germany, with Chancellor Olaf Scholz's party on track to achieve their worst election result since 1887. The Liberals (FDP), on the other hand, look likely to not gain any seats in the parliament at all in the next election, as they are currently falling below the five percent threshold to enter the Bundestag (federal parliament). The rise of the far-right in German politics The Ampel's loss has been the far-right's gain, as the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has seen its fortunes rise consistently in opinion polls since the 2021 election. The party was originally founded to oppose plans for the EU to provide bailouts to struggling member states during the Eurozone debt crisis in the early 2010s, however, following the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis the party pivoted towards a hardline anti-immigration stance. Since then, the AfD has drifted consistently to the right, with one of the dominant factions, known as Der Flügel ("the wing"), being labelled far-right extremists and even, in some cases, fascists. While the federal-level party is currently led by Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupulla, members of the more moderate faction of the party, at the regional-level the party is often led by more extreme figures, such as in the state of Thuringia where party leader Björn Höcke has been labelled in the media as a far-right extremist. In January 2024, an article by investigative journalists brought to light secret meetings between AfD members and far-right supporters to discuss plans for mass deportations of foreigners from Germany, were the AfD to come to power. The scandal led to the largest street protests in the country so far this century, with estimates showing as many as 1.4 million people turning out across the country. Some protesters have even gone so far as to call for a constitutional ban against the AfD, claiming that they pose a threat to German democracy. The party suffered a drop in support in the aftermath of the scandal, with their share of prospective voters declining by four percent from their high-point in January of 2024. The Alternative for Germany currently is the party of choice for 18 percent of German voters, which would make them the second largest party in parliament after the Christian Democrats. While no other party currently says they would work with the AfD on a national level, this Brandmauer ("fire wall") may be tested in regional parliaments during 2024, as the party looks set to come first in several states in East Germany during the year.

The survey charted the identity of Swedish-speaking Finns and their opinions on politics and society. The survey also included questions on party affiliations, electoral behaviour, social trust, future prospects, health and well-being. The data was collected as part of the Citizen Panel of Swedish-speaking Finns (Barometern), which is part of The Finnish Research Infrastructure for Public Opinion (FIRIPO). The data is particularly comprehensive and is part of the second major Barometer survey, which is carried out every two years. The first major Barometer survey (B1) was conducted in 2019. Respondents were first asked about their identity, before moving on to ask questions related to politics. For example, respondents were asked how satisfied they were with the way democracy works. Respondents were then asked to place themselves on a right-left spectrum based on their political opinions. Further questions were asked about parliamentary elections and voting behaviour. They were asked which party they usually vote for and which issues are important when deciding which party to vote for. Respondents were also asked what they thought about other political parties. They were also asked about the 2022 Finnish county elections and about voting in them. Next, respondents were asked about their trust in research results, politicians and institutions. They were also asked about their views on the extent of corruption. Respondents were then asked about their opinions on various current political issues. Finally, respondents were asked about their views on the future prospects of social issues and society, their own health and their satisfaction with life. Background variables included the respondent's NUTS3 region of residence, mother tongue, gender, year of birth, age, highest level of education, religious affiliation, political party preference, social class, occupational status and marital status.

Social movements and their respective countermovements have evolved to use online social media platforms to recruit followers, share pertinent information, discuss relevant issues, and draw the attention of political figures. Movements’ strategic use of Twitter has increasingly been studied, though there are relatively few studies that compare social movements and their corresponding countermovements simultaneously. We examine engagement in the #DefundthePolice social movement and #DefendthePolice countermovement in a Twitter network comprised of retweets using both hashtags from August 2020 to January 2021. Text and sentiment analysis as well as a content analysis of a random sample of retweets in the network’s 20 largest subgroups reveal four key patterns. First, information commonly communicated in historical social movements is communicated in the online, Twitter network. Second, the use of movement and countermovement hashtags to criticize is common, suggesting Twitter engagement with the movement/countermovement is not a sufficient indicator of support for the movement. Third, social movements are inextricably embedded in politics, with political discourse present in all the 20 largest subgroups. Finally, though we do not include geo-tagged tweets in the analysis, physical geography is key theme in multiple subgroups. Broadly, our findings demonstrate the breadth of topics communicated within movement networks and highlight the importance of qualitatively examining Twitter data in the study of social movements.

The Quick Survey on the Federal Parliament Election 2021 was conducted by the Forschungsgruppe Wahlen. During the survey period from 20.09.2021 to 24.09.2021, 1713 eligible voters in Germany were interviewed by telephone (CATI) on the following topics: Political opinion: parties, top candidates, problems and competencies, electoral decision in the context of candidate preference and party competence. Respondents were selected by a multistage random sample including landline and mobile phone numbers (dual frame sample).

The study on the election for the House of Representatives in Berlin 2021 was conducted by the Forschungsgruppe Wahlen. During the survey period 20.09.2021 to 24.09.2021, 1504 eligible voters in Berlin were interviewed by telephone (CATI) on the following topics: Political opinion: Parties. Top candidates. Problems and competences. Electoral decision in the context of candidate preference and party competence. The respondents were selected by a multi-stage random sample.

The study on the post-election survey following the 2021 Bundestag elections was conducted by infratest dimap on behalf of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. During the survey period 21.09.2021 to 19.11.2021, eligible voters aged 18 and over were surveyed in telephone interviews (CATI) on the following topics: political interest, satisfaction with democracy, positioning on various political issues, party competence, voting decision and current voting intention, voter participation and time of voting decision. Questions were also asked about communication behavior during the election campaign, campaign contacts, reasons for not voting and motives for switching voters. The respondents were selected using a stratified random sample from an ADM selection frame including landline and mobile phone numbers (dual-frame sample).