Skip to content
Contents
The Public Mind

    Type to search. Planned chapters match by title only.

    Chapter 2.2 · Report

    Feelings toward the other party

    Among ANES partisans, the average rating of the other party on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer fell from 48.0 in 1978 to 20.6 in 2024.

    Author
    Vishal Singh
    Affiliation
    NYU Stern
    Published

    Every estimate of the chapter with its interval and every figure as a table, generated from the chapter's data files. Table n of this report is figure n of the chapter. The same report as Markdown: report.md.

    Identification

    Title
    Feelings toward the other party
    Chapter
    2.2 (Part II, Change and partisan feeling; Labels, sorting and partisan feeling)
    Question
    How have partisans' feelings toward their own party and the other party changed since 1978?
    Dek
    Among ANES partisans, the average rating of the other party on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer fell from 48.0 in 1978 to 20.6 in 2024.
    Grain
    individuals
    Status
    draft
    Published
    Updated
    not revised
    Data sources
    • ANES Cumulative Data File. Cumulative Data File 1948-2024: party thermometers 1978-2024, presidential nominee thermometers 1968-2024; years: 1948-2024 (33 study years; even years only after 2004; no 2006, 2010 or 2014 study); weights: weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf and weight_web (VCF0009x, VCF0009y) for mode-specific estimates in 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024
    • ANES 2024 Time Series. 2024 Time Series: party thermometers V241166 and V241167, party identification V241227x, variance strata V240107d and primary sampling units V240107c, used for one design-based check of the 2024 all-interview other-party mean; years: 2024 (pre-election and post-election interviews); weights: pre-election full-sample weight (V240107a), equal to the Cumulative File weight
    Canonical URL
    https://vishalsingh.org/politics/feelings-toward-the-other-party
    Markdown
    https://vishalsingh.org/politics/feelings-toward-the-other-party/report.md
    BibTeX
    @misc{singh2026feelingstowardtheotherparty,
  author = {Singh, Vishal},
  title = {Feelings toward the other party},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://vishalsingh.org/politics/feelings-toward-the-other-party},
  note = {In The Public Mind. Published 30 September 2026.}
}

    Principal estimates

    The facts the dek and the opening prose cite, in order of appearance. Every fact is in the table of all estimates below.

    EstimandPopulationPeriodValueIntervalnWeightsSourceFact id
    weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties197848.095% CI 47.1 to 48.91,723weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data Fileoth_1978
    weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202420.695% CI 19.8 to 21.55,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data Fileoth_2024
    weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties197871.095% CI 70.2 to 71.81,723weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data Fileown_1978
    weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202470.595% CI 69.7 to 71.35,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data Fileown_2024
    weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties197823.095% CI 21.8 to 24.21,723weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data Filegap_1978
    weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202449.995% CI 48.6 to 51.25,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data Filegap_2024
    lowest answer the feeling thermometer allows (a definition of the scale, not an estimate)answers to the feeling thermometer1978 to 20240none (constant)ANES Cumulative Data Filetherm_min
    highest answer the feeling thermometer allows (a definition of the scale, not an estimate)answers to the feeling thermometer1978 to 2024100none (constant)ANES Cumulative Data Filetherm_max
    count of survey yearsANES time-series studies with both party thermometers1978 to 202418none (count)ANES Cumulative Data Filen_waves
    count of respondents in the samplepartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties18 surveys, 1978 to 202443,063none (count)ANES Cumulative Data Filen_paired
    all-interview other-party mean: Taylor-linearised standard error from the variance strata and primary sampling units of the 2024 Time Series filepartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, 2024 Time Series file20240.365,080pre-election full-sample weight (V240107a)ANES 2024 Time Seriesdesign_se_2024
    all-interview other-party mean: standard error from the Kish effective sample sizepartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, 2024 Time Series file20240.425,080pre-election full-sample weight (V240107a)ANES 2024 Time Seriesmodel_se_2024
    weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties198830.795% CI 29.3 to 32.11,717weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data Filegap_1988
    weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties198876.395% CI 75.4 to 77.11,717weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data Fileown_1988
    weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties198845.695% CI 44.5 to 46.61,717weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data Fileoth_1988

    Findings

    Among Democrats and Republicans in the American National Election Studies (ANES), the average rating of the other party on the feeling thermometerFeeling thermometerA 0 to 100 rating of a group or person, where 0 is the coldest feeling and 100 the warmest. The American National Election Studies ask respondents to rate parties, candidates and social groups this way. fell from 48.048.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 47.1 to 48.9n1,723Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1978 to 20.620.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 19.8 to 21.5n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024. The average rating of the own party went from 71.071.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 70.2 to 71.8n1,723Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File to 70.570.5 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 69.7 to 71.3n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File over the same years, so it ended near where it started. The difference between the two ratings, own party minus other party, is a separate quantity; its average rose from 23.023.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 21.8 to 24.2n1,723Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File points to 49.949.9 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 48.6 to 51.2n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File.

    The thermometer asks respondents to rate a party or a person from cold to warm on a scale from 00 points on the feeling thermometerEstimandlowest answer the feeling thermometer allows (a definition of the scale, not an estimate)Weightsnone (constant)Populationanswers to the feeling thermometerPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File to 100100 points on the feeling thermometerEstimandhighest answer the feeling thermometer allows (a definition of the scale, not an estimate)Weightsnone (constant)Populationanswers to the feeling thermometerPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File. The ratings here come from the ANES Cumulative Data File: 1818 surveysEstimandcount of survey yearsWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES time-series studies with both party thermometersPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File surveys from 1978 to 2024 and 43,06343,063 respondentsEstimandcount of respondents in the sampleWeightsnone (count)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod18 surveys, 1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File respondents who identify with a party or lean toward one (leanersPartisan leanerA respondent who first says they are independent but, when asked, says they lean toward one party. Most figures group leaners with the party they lean toward, and each chapter says which grouping it uses. included) and who rated both parties, so the own-party, other-party and gap averages in each year rest on the same people. Respondents who call themselves pure independents are left out because they have no own party. Averages use the ANES full-sample weightSurvey weightsNumbers that scale each respondent so the sample matches the population on known traits such as age, race, education and region. A weighted average counts a respondent with a large weight for more than one with a small weight..IntervalsConfidence intervalA range around an estimate that would contain the true value in 95% of repeated samples if the sampling model held. The book reports 95% intervals unless it says otherwise. come from the Kish effective sample sizeEffective sample sizeThe number of equally weighted respondents that would give the same precision as the weighted sample. It is smaller than the raw count when the weights vary a lot, and it sets how wide the confidence interval is. [1] and, for shares, the Wilson method [2], and they treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample. For 2024 the standard error of the all-interview other-party average is 0.360.36 standard error of the mean, points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandall-interview other-party mean: Taylor-linearised standard error from the variance strata and primary sampling units of the 2024 Time Series filen5,080Weightspre-election full-sample weight (V240107a)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, 2024 Time Series filePeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series points from the survey's strata and primary sampling units and 0.420.42 standard error of the mean, points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandall-interview other-party mean: standard error from the Kish effective sample sizen5,080Weightspre-election full-sample weight (V240107a)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, 2024 Time Series filePeriod2024SourceANES 2024 Time Series points from the effective sample size, so the printed interval for that average is the wider one. Each survey is analyzed as a separate cross-section, so the chapter describes how averages among partisans changed and says nothing about how any one person's feelings changed.

    Researchers call the gap between how people feel about their own party and about the other party affective polarizationAffective polarizationThe gap between how warmly people feel toward their own party and how coldly they feel toward the other party. It measures feeling, not disagreement on issues. [3] [4]. Work with these same ratings dates the rise of partisan animus to the 1980s and finds that it grew further in the decades that followed [5]. Published work with thermometer ratings describes contempt for the other party as now exceeding affection for one's own [6]. In the sample used here the gap rose from 23.023.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 21.8 to 24.2n1,723Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1978 to 30.730.7 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 29.3 to 32.1n1,717Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1988. More of that rise comes from the own-party rating, which went from 71.071.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 70.2 to 71.8n1,723Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File to 76.376.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 75.4 to 77.1n1,717Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File, than from the other-party rating, which went from 48.048.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 47.1 to 48.9n1,723Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File to 45.645.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 44.5 to 46.6n1,717Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File. Whether the fall in warmth matters for voting and other behavior is the subject of Companion 2.2a, Negative partisanship, and how far apart partisans are on issues is in Planned, Affective and issue polarization (planned). This chapter describes the ratings and then asks how much of the change goes with a change in survey modeSurvey modeHow respondents were interviewed: in person, by phone, on paper or online. Mode can change answers, so a change in mode can look like a change in opinion., how much with a change in the mix of partisans, and whether the change from 2020 to 2024 holds up.

    Other-party ratings fell more than own-party ratings

    Table 1 plots the two averages. The rating of the other party was 48.0 (95% CI 47.1 to 48.9)48.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 47.1 to 48.9n1,723Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1978 and 20.6 (95% CI 19.8 to 21.5)20.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 19.8 to 21.5n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, a fall of 27.4 (95% CI 26.2 to 28.6)27.4 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 26.2 to 28.6n6,803Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points. It was 46.846.8 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 45.7 to 47.8n1,656Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1990SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1990, so most of the fall came after 1990. The gap between the two ratings peaked at 52.352.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 51.2 to 53.3n7,174Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020.

    Table 1. Partisans rated the other party 20.6 in 2024, down from 48.0 in 1978, and rated their own party 70.5

    The own-party rating has a small negative slope. Table 2 gives the slope of each average on survey year. Over the whole record the own-party rating changes by −0.7 (95% CI −1.4 to −0.1)−0.7 points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeEstimandslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 17 degrees of freedomInterval95% CI −1.4 to −0.1n43,063Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024 (18 surveys)SourceANES Cumulative Data File points per decade, an interval that excludes zero. The 1978 and 2024 endpoints differ by −0.5 (95% CI −1.7 to 0.7)−0.5 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI −1.7 to 0.7n6,803Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, an interval that includes zero, while the line fitted through all 1818 surveysEstimandcount of survey yearsWeightsnone (count)PopulationANES time-series studies with both party thermometersPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File surveys changes by −3.3 (95% CI −6.3 to −0.4)−3.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandwhole-period slope per decade times 4.6 decadesInterval95% CI −6.3 to −0.4n43,063Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024 (4.6 decades)SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, because own-party ratings were high in the 1980s (76.376.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 75.4 to 77.1n1,717Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1988) and low in 2016 (67.167.1 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 66.3 to 68.0n3,610Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File).

    The other-party rating changes by −6.9 (95% CI −7.9 to −5.9)−6.9 points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeEstimandslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 17 degrees of freedomInterval95% CI −7.9 to −5.9n43,063Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024 (18 surveys)SourceANES Cumulative Data File points per decade, and the gap by +6.2 (95% CI 4.8 to 7.6)+6.2 points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeEstimandslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 17 degrees of freedomInterval95% CI 4.8 to 7.6n43,063Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024 (18 surveys)SourceANES Cumulative Data File. Standard errors are clusteredClustered standard errorsStandard errors that allow answers within the same group, such as the same county or the same week, to be related. They are wider than ordinary errors when members of a group resemble each other. on survey year, because respondents interviewed in one year share that year's events. Among face-to-face respondents alone, the own-party rating changed by −2.1 (95% CI −4.1 to −0.1)−2.1 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI −4.1 to −0.1n2,939Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2008 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points between 2008 and 2024.

    Table 2. The other-party rating changed by −6.9 points per decade and the own-party rating by −0.7

    Splitting the record at 1990 gives two windows (the second view of Table 2). Before 1990 the other-party slope is −0.8 (95% CI −3.3 to 1.7)−0.8 points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeEstimandslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 6 degrees of freedomInterval95% CI −3.3 to 1.7n11,264Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 1990 (7 surveys)SourceANES Cumulative Data File, an interval that includes zero, and from 1990 it is −8.2 (95% CI −9.7 to −6.8)−8.2 points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeEstimandslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 11 degrees of freedomInterval95% CI −9.7 to −6.8n33,455Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1990 to 2024 (12 surveys)SourceANES Cumulative Data File. The pre-1990 result depends on where the record is split: for 1978 to 1988 the slope is −1.8 (95% CI −4.0 to 0.5)−1.8 points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeEstimandslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 5 degrees of freedomInterval95% CI −4.0 to 0.5n9,608Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 1988 (6 surveys)SourceANES Cumulative Data File, and for 1978 to 1996 it is −3.2 (95% CI −4.5 to −1.9)−3.2 points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeEstimandslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 9 degrees of freedomInterval95% CI −4.5 to −1.9n16,457Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 1996 (10 surveys)SourceANES Cumulative Data File, an interval that excludes zero. The own-party intervals in both windows include zero, so they cannot separate a lower level after 1990 from a steady drift.

    More partisans rate the other party at zero

    The average hides a change in how people answer. In 1978, 5.4% (95% CI 4.4% to 6.6%)5.4% percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 4.4% to 6.6%n1,723Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File of partisans rated the other party at zero, the coldest answer the scale allows. The share peaked at 40.0%40.0% percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 38.5% to 41.6%n7,174Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020 and was 33.2% (95% CI 31.4% to 35.1%)33.2% percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 31.4% to 35.1%n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024 (Table 3). The share rating the other party above the neutral midpoint moved the other way, from 31.2%31.2% percent of partisans rating the other party above the neutral midpointEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 29.1% to 33.5%n1,723Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1978 to 6.5%6.5% percent of partisans rating the other party above the neutral midpointEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 5.6% to 7.6%n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024.

    Table 3. The share of partisans rating the other party at zero rose from 5.4% in 1978 to 33.2% in 2024

    The share at zero is lower in face-to-face interviews than on the web in every year with both modes. In 2024 it was 22.4% (95% CI 18.9% to 26.3%)22.4% percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 18.9% to 26.3%n960Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, face-to-face respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File among face-to-face respondents and 38.8% (95% CI 35.9% to 41.8%)38.8% percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 35.9% to 41.8%n1,850Weightsweight_web (VCF0009y)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, web respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File among web respondents, so the pooled 33.2%33.2% percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 31.4% to 35.1%n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File depends on the mix of modes. Inside face-to-face interviews the share still rose, from 14.8%14.8% percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 12.9% to 16.8%n1,979Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2008, face-to-face respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2008.

    Part of the fall after 2008 goes with survey mode

    The ANES changed how it interviews during this record. Through 2008 interviewing was mainly in person. In 2012 the study added a separate web sample, in 2020 it interviewed no one in person [7], and in 2024 it combined a new face-to-face sample, a new web sample and respondents from an earlier panel [8].The 2024 analysis sample has 960960 respondentsEstimandcountWeightsnone (count)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, fresh face-to-face sampleSourceANES Cumulative Data File partisans from the new face-to-face sample, 1,8501,850 respondentsEstimandcountWeightsnone (count)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, fresh web sample without paper casesSourceANES Cumulative Data File from the new web sample and 2,2702,270 respondentsEstimandcountWeightsnone (count)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, re-interviewed 2016-2020 panel and paper casesSourceANES Cumulative Data File who belong to neither: respondents re-interviewed from the 2016 and 2020 panel, and paper questionnaires. Their weights are not mode-specific, so they enter only the all-interview estimates. In the all-interview weights of 2024 the face-to-face sample carries 35.1%35.1% percent of the all-interview weightEstimandshare of the summed all-interview weight held by the groupn5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, face-to-face respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File of the total, the web sample 31.3%31.3% percent of the all-interview weightEstimandshare of the summed all-interview weight held by the groupn5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, web respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File and the group in neither 33.7%33.7% percent of the all-interview weightEstimandshare of the summed all-interview weight held by the groupn5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, panel and paper respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File. The group in neither rates the other party at 17.5 (95% CI 16.3 to 18.6)17.5 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 16.3 to 18.6n2,270Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, respondents in neither mode-weight groupSourceANES Cumulative Data File, close to the web value of 18.018.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 16.7 to 19.2n1,850Weightsweight_web (VCF0009y)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, web respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File. The file carries mode-specific weights for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024, which allow each mode to be estimated by itself.

    Web respondents rate the other party lower than face-to-face respondents in every year with both: by 7.7 (95% CI 6.1 to 9.4)7.7 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 6.1 to 9.4n5,079Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x); weight_web (VCF0009y)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 2012, 6.3 (95% CI 4.4 to 8.2)6.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 4.4 to 8.2n3,610Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x); weight_web (VCF0009y)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2016 and 7.6 (95% CI 5.3 to 9.8)7.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 5.3 to 9.8n2,810Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x); weight_web (VCF0009y)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024. The ANES web and face-to-face samples are separate samples, so the gap combines how people answer with who answers. The comparison describes the two samples; it does not identify what interviewing the same people in the other mode would have done to their answers.

    Table 4. Face-to-face respondents rated the other party 4.9 points warmer than the all-interview average in 2024, and web respondents colder

    The blended sample includes web respondents from 2012 and panel and paper respondents in 2024, and the all-interview average falls faster than the face-to-face average. The all-interview rating fell by 14.1 (95% CI 12.6 to 15.5)14.1 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandfall in the all-interview mean (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year)Interval95% CI 12.6 to 15.5n7,059Weightsweight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2008 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points between 2008, a year with face-to-face interviews only, and 2024, and the face-to-face rating by 9.2 (95% CI 6.9 to 11.4)9.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandfall in the face-to-face mean (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year)Interval95% CI 6.9 to 11.4n7,059Weightsweight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2008 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File. The remaining 4.9 (95% CI 3.5 to 6.3)4.9 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandgap between the all-interview and the face-to-face mean in 2024 (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year)Interval95% CI 3.5 to 6.3n7,059Weightsweight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2008 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, 34.7% (95% CI 23.8% to 46.6%)34.7% percent of the all-interview fallEstimandgap between the all-interview and face-to-face 2024 means as a share of the all-interview fall (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year)Interval95% CI 23.8% to 46.6%n7,059Weightsweight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2008 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the all-interview fall, are the distance between the 2024 all-interview average and the 2024 face-to-face average, and the second tab of Table 4 splits them between web respondents and panel and paper respondents.

    The gap first appears in 2012, when web respondents entered and the sample had only face-to-face and web respondents: between 2008 and 2012 the all-interview rating fell by 6.8 (95% CI 5.4 to 8.3)6.8 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 5.4 to 8.3n7,058Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2008 to 2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File points and the face-to-face rating by 1.9 (95% CI 0.1 to 3.7)1.9 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 0.1 to 3.7n3,777Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2008 to 2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File. The fall continues inside each mode. From 2012 to 2024 the face-to-face rating fell by 7.3 (95% CI 5.0 to 9.6)7.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 5.0 to 9.6n2,758Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2012 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points and the web rating by 7.1 (95% CI 5.6 to 8.7)7.1 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 5.6 to 8.7n5,131Weightsweight_web (VCF0009y)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2012 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File.

    The face-to-face and web views of Table 1 and Table 3 repeat the trend for each mode. The 2020 study has no mode weights, so the fall from 26.026.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 25.2 to 26.9n3,610Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2016 to 19.219.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 18.6 to 19.9n7,174Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020 cannot be split by mode and is reported as it stands. The direction of the trend holds inside each mode, and its size depends on which interviews are counted.

    The fall happened inside every group

    A change in who counts as a strong or weak partisan could lower the average without any group changing. Strong partisans rate the other party lowest, and their share of partisans rose from 27.2% (95% CI 25.1% to 29.3%)27.2% percent of partisansEstimandweighted share who are strong partisans (95% Wilson interval)Interval95% CI 25.1% to 29.3%n1,723Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1978 to 46.2% (95% CI 44.2% to 48.2%)46.2% percent of partisansEstimandweighted share who are strong partisans (95% Wilson interval)Interval95% CI 44.2% to 48.2%n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024. A shift-share decomposition [9] splits the change in the average into three terms: the change within groups, computed at the 1978 mix of groups; the change in the mix, computed at the 1978 group averages; and an interaction of the two. The three add to the total.

    Table 5. Change within groups accounts for 24.5 of the 27.4 points the other-party rating fell

    For strength groups (strong partisans, weak partisans and leaners) the total fall of 27.4 (95% CI 26.2 to 28.5)27.4 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandshift-share of the other-party rating over strong, weak and leaning partisans: total (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))Interval95% CI 26.2 to 28.5n6,803Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points splits into 24.5 (95% CI 23.2 to 25.8)24.5 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandshift-share of the other-party rating over strong, weak and leaning partisans: within (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))Interval95% CI 23.2 to 25.8n6,803Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File from change within groups (89.7% (95% CI 87.8% to 91.7%)89.7% percent of the total changeEstimandshift-share of the other-party rating over strong, weak and leaning partisans: within as a share of the total change (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))Interval95% CI 87.8% to 91.7%n6,803Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the total), 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.3)1.8 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandshift-share of the other-party rating over strong, weak and leaning partisans: composition (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))Interval95% CI 1.3 to 2.3n6,803Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File from the change in the mix and 1.1 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.7)1.1 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandshift-share of the other-party rating over strong, weak and leaning partisans: interaction (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))Interval95% CI 0.5 to 1.7n6,803Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File from the interaction. The face-to-face and education tabs give the same result: change within groups accounts for most of the fall in each.

    The own-party rating shows different arithmetic (the last tab of Table 5). Its total change of −0.5 (95% CI −1.6 to 0.6)−0.5 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandshift-share of the own-party rating over strength groups: total (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))Interval95% CI −1.6 to 0.6n6,803Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points combines −3.6 (95% CI −4.6 to −2.5)−3.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandshift-share of the own-party rating over strength groups: within (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))Interval95% CI −4.6 to −2.5n6,803Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File from change within groups with +2.2 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.8)+2.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandshift-share of the own-party rating over strength groups: composition (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))Interval95% CI 1.6 to 2.8n6,803Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File from the larger share of strong partisans, who rate their own party higher, and +0.9 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.4)+0.9 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandshift-share of the own-party rating over strength groups: interaction (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))Interval95% CI 0.4 to 1.4n6,803Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File from the interaction.

    The 1978 base is low for strong partisans, whose own-party rating was 81.581.5 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 80.0 to 83.0n468Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisansPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1978, 84.384.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 82.8 to 85.8n405Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisansPeriod1980SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1980, 84.584.5 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 83.3 to 85.7n619Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisansPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1988 and 80.680.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 79.6 to 81.6n2,472Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisansPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, so the change within that group depends on the base year. The steadiness of the overall own-party average is a balance between lower ratings inside the weaker groups and a larger share of the strongest group.

    The same fall shows up group by group. Table 6 plots the other-party average within each strength, party, education and birth cohortCohortPeople born in the same period, such as the same decade. Comparing cohorts shows whether a difference comes from when people were born, as distinct from their age or the year they were surveyed. group, and each tab gives the start and end of its lines. All 1212 groupsEstimandcount of groupsWeightsnone (count)Populationstrength, education and birth-cohort groups with at least four yearly estimatesPeriod1978 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File groups have a lower average at the end of their record than at the start, and the interval for the change excludes zero in all of them. Leaners in 2024 rate the other party lower than strong partisans did in 1978.

    Table 6. The other-party rating fell in all 12 groups of partisans

    The 2020 to 2024 change depends on the 2024 sample

    Across all 2024 interviews the other-party average changed by +1.4 (95% CI 0.3 to 2.4)+1.4 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandchange in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 0.3 to 2.4n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2020 to 2024, all 2024 interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File points from 2020, from 19.219.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 18.6 to 19.9n7,174Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File to 20.620.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 19.8 to 21.5n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File. The 2020 study was interviewed online, by video and by telephone [7], so 2024 web respondents are the closest match to it, and among them the change is −1.3 (95% CI −2.7 to 0.1)−1.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandchange in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI −2.7 to 0.1n1,850Weightsweight_web (VCF0009y) for 2024; weight (VCF0009z) for 2020Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2020 to 2024, 2024 web respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File points, an interval that includes zero. Among 2024 face-to-face respondents the change is +6.3 (95% CI 4.3 to 8.2)+6.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandchange in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 4.3 to 8.2n960Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x) for 2024; weight (VCF0009z) for 2020Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2020 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File points, but the 2020 baseline has no face-to-face interviews.

    In 2024 face-to-face respondents rated the other party 7.6 (95% CI 5.3 to 9.8)7.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 5.3 to 9.8n2,810Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x); weight_web (VCF0009y)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points higher than web respondents, close to the change of +6.3+6.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandchange in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 4.3 to 8.2n960Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x) for 2024; weight (VCF0009z) for 2020Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2020 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File from 2020, so the face-to-face change cannot be read as a rise since 2020. The 2024 respondents in neither mode group, who carry 33.7%33.7% percent of the all-interview weightEstimandshare of the summed all-interview weight held by the groupn5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, panel and paper respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File of the all-interview weight, rated the other party at 17.5 (95% CI 16.3 to 18.6)17.5 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 16.3 to 18.6n2,270Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, respondents in neither mode-weight groupSourceANES Cumulative Data File, against 19.219.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 18.6 to 19.9n7,174Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020, so the face-to-face sample is the only one of the three 2024 groups above the 2020 average.

    Table 7 repeats the comparison for all partisans, Democrats and Republicans, and its second view adds subgroups by strength of attachment and interest in the campaign.The 2024 all-interview sample includes respondents who were also interviewed in 2020. The intervals treat the 2020 and 2024 samples as independent, which makes the intervals of the all-interview comparison wider than they need to be. The web and face-to-face comparisons use fresh 2024 samples. Among web respondents the only subgroup change with an interval that excludes zero is negative: Democrats at −2.3 (95% CI −4.1 to −0.4)−2.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandchange in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI −4.1 to −0.4n966Weightsweight_web (VCF0009y) for 2024; weight (VCF0009z) for 2020Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, democratsPeriod2020 to 2024, 2024 web respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File. Among face-to-face respondents all 88 subgroupsEstimandcount of subgroup changes reportedWeightsnone (count)Populationsubgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both yearsPeriod2020 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File subgroups shown have an interval above zero. Across all 2024 interviews 33 subgroupsEstimandcount of subgroup changes whose 95% interval excludes zeroWeightsnone (count)Populationsubgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both yearsPeriod2020 to 2024, all 2024 interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File of the 99 subgroupsEstimandcount of subgroup changes reportedWeightsnone (count)Populationsubgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both yearsPeriod2020 to 2024, all 2024 interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File changes have an interval that excludes zero (all partisans, Republicans and leaners), and the other subgroups have intervals that include zero, so the data cannot separate their changes from no change.

    Table 7. Compared with 2020, the other-party rating differs by −1.3 points among 2024 web respondents and +6.3 among 2024 face-to-face respondents

    The change from 2020 is not the same in the two 2024 samples. Two readings fit the numbers. Warmth may have risen among people reachable face to face and held or fallen among people reachable online. Or the two 2024 samples may differ in who they reach and how they answer for reasons unrelated to 2020, which the 2024 gap between them allows. The files used here cannot separate the two, because 2020 has no face-to-face interviews to compare with. The subgroup changes were not tested against each other, so the figure does not show that any subgroup moved more than another.

    Since 2012 the other party's nominee is rated below the party

    The other party's presidential nominee was rated below the party in 99 electionsEstimandcount of elections in which the other party's nominee was rated below the party, with a 95% interval for the difference that excludes zeroWeightsnone (count)Populationpresidential elections from 1980 to 2024 with both seriesPeriod1980 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the 1212 electionsEstimandcount of electionsWeightsnone (count)Populationpresidential elections from 1980 to 2024 with both seriesPeriod1980 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File elections from 1980 to 2024, with an interval for the difference that excludes zero, and in every election from 2012 on (the second view of Table 8). The party average minus the nominee average was 1.6 (95% CI 0.4 to 2.8)1.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandother party's mean rating minus its nominee's mean rating, from two overlapping samples treated as independent (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 0.4 to 2.8n10,154Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties (party) or both nominees (nominee)Period2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File points in 2012 and 7.3 (95% CI 6.1 to 8.5)7.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandother party's mean rating minus its nominee's mean rating, from two overlapping samples treated as independent (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 6.1 to 8.5n10,167Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties (party) or both nominees (nominee)Period2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024.The nominee and party averages come from two overlapping samples: partisans who rated both nominees and partisans who rated both parties. The intervals treat the two samples as independent, so they are wider than needed.

    In 2008 the nominee was rated 3.4 (95% CI 1.6 to 5.1)3.4 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandother party's nominee's mean rating minus the party's mean rating, from two overlapping samples treated as independent (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 1.6 to 5.1n3,969Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties (party) or both nominees (nominee)Period2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File points above the party. The difference is among Democrats, who rated John McCain 5.7 (95% CI 3.5 to 7.9)5.7 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandother party's nominee's mean rating minus the party's mean rating, from two overlapping samples treated as independent (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 3.5 to 7.9n2,682Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocrats, leaners included, with a rating of both parties (party) or both nominees (nominee)Period2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File points above the Republican Party; Republicans rated Barack Obama 0.3 (95% CI −2.6 to 3.1)0.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandother party's nominee's mean rating minus the party's mean rating, from two overlapping samples treated as independent (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI −2.6 to 3.1n1,287Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties (party) or both nominees (nominee)Period2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File points above the Democratic Party, an interval that includes zero. The intervals for 1996 and 2000 include zero.

    Table 8. The other party's nominee was rated 13.3 in 2024, below the 20.6 for the party, while the own party's nominee was rated 75.2

    The nominee is also rated below the party in 2024 within each interview mode: 16.7 (95% CI 14.7 to 18.7)16.7 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 14.7 to 18.7n966Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nomineesPeriod2024, face-to-face respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File against 25.525.5 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 23.7 to 27.4n960Weightsweight_ftf (VCF0009x)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, face-to-face respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File among face-to-face respondents and 11.6 (95% CI 10.4 to 12.9)11.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 10.4 to 12.9n1,854Weightsweight_web (VCF0009y)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nomineesPeriod2024, web respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File against 18.018.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 16.7 to 19.2n1,850Weightsweight_web (VCF0009y)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024, web respondentsSourceANES Cumulative Data File among web respondents. The share rating the other party's nominee at zero was 5.3% (95% CI 4.1% to 6.7%)5.3% percent of partisans rating the other party's presidential nominee at zeroEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 4.1% to 6.7%n1,157Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nomineesPeriod1968SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1968, 57.8%57.8% percent of partisans rating the other party's presidential nominee at zeroEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 56.2% to 59.3%n7,026Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nomineesPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020 and 59.7% (95% CI 57.7% to 61.7%)59.7% percent of partisans rating the other party's presidential nominee at zeroEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 57.7% to 61.7%n5,087Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nomineesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, against 33.2%33.2% percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroEstimandweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 31.4% to 35.1%n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File for the party in 2024 (the third view of Table 8).

    Between 2020 and 2024 the party average changed by +1.4+1.4 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandchange in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI 0.3 to 2.4n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2020 to 2024, all 2024 interviewsSourceANES Cumulative Data File points while the nominee average changed by −1.3 (95% CI −2.4 to −0.2)−1.3 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI −2.4 to −0.2n12,113Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nomineesPeriod2020 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, an interval below zero. The fall in the nominee average is among Republicans, who rated Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024, a change of −4.0 (95% CI −5.7 to −2.4)−4.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI −5.7 to −2.4n5,760Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans, leaners included, with a rating of both nomineesPeriod2020 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points.Republicans rated Biden at 20.220.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 19.2 to 21.3n3,309Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans, leaners included, with a rating of both nomineesPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020 and Harris at 16.2 (95% CI 14.9 to 17.5)16.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 14.9 to 17.5n2,451Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans, leaners included, with a rating of both nomineesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024. Democrats rated Donald Trump in both years, at 9.69.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 8.7 to 10.5n3,717Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocrats, leaners included, with a rating of both nomineesPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020 and 10.6 (95% CI 9.5 to 11.8)10.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 9.5 to 11.8n2,636Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocrats, leaners included, with a rating of both nomineesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024. Democrats rated Donald Trump in both years, a change of +1.1 (95% CI −0.4 to 2.5)+1.1 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimanddifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Interval95% CI −0.4 to 2.5n6,353Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocrats, leaners included, with a rating of both nomineesPeriod2020 to 2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, an interval that includes zero.

    Ratings of the own party's nominee did not move in step. They were 64.7 (95% CI 63.7 to 65.8)64.7 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 63.7 to 65.8n3,622Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nomineesPeriod2016SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2016, the lowest in the record, and 75.2 (95% CI 74.3 to 76.2)75.2 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 74.3 to 76.2n5,087Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nomineesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, near the 75.875.8 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 74.9 to 76.7n1,903Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nomineesPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File of 1984 and the 75.775.7 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 75.0 to 76.5n7,026Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nomineesPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File of 2020.

    What these data cannot show

    The ratings come from repeated cross-sections, so they cannot show that any partisan grew colder. The decomposition shows that the fall is not accounted for by a shift among strength or education groups. It does not rule out that older cohorts leave the samples while younger ones enter, or that people who change party move between groups. The cohort lines cannot separate age, cohort and period. A panel that re-interviews the same people is needed to describe change within persons. The ANES 2016, 2020 and 2024 panel exists but is not in the files used here.

    The mode results rest on mode weights that exist for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024. The gap between the all-interview and face-to-face averages combines how people answer in each mode with who answers in each mode, and it is a decomposition of the record and not an estimate of a mode effect. The 2024 gap also includes the panel and paper respondents, who belong to neither mode group. Interviews before 2008 are not split by mode. The 2016 to 2020 change and the 2020 to 2024 change cannot be split by mode at all.

    A thermometer rating of a party may reflect feelings about party elites more than about fellow citizens who support it [10], and a rating of zero is the coldest answer and not a measure of behavior. What the ratings go with in voting, in willingness to live near or work with the other side and in support for political violence belongs to Companion 2.2a, Negative partisanship and Chapter 5.4, Political violence and democratic norms. Feelings toward social groups are in Planned, Party and feelings toward social groups (planned). Accounts that start from partisanship as a social identity [11], from the alignment of party with other traits (Chapter 1.1, Party and ideology) or from negative partisanship [12] are candidate explanations, and the ratings alone cannot tell them apart.

    The intervals are model based and ignore the ANES sampling design. The check against the design variables in the note on intervals covers 2024 only, so the intervals for other years are not compared with design-based intervals. The split year 1990 was chosen after looking at the series, and the pre-1990 slope changes with the split year. Each sample in the 2020 to 2024 comparison reports up to nine changes without adjustment for multiple comparisons, so an interval that excludes zero in one sample is weaker evidence than it looks.

    The nominee series rates people, and the same Republican nominee appears in 2016, 2020 and 2024, so it mixes feelings about a party with feelings about a person. The Democratic nominee differs in each of those years, so a change in Republicans' ratings of the other nominee between elections compares different people. The decompositions cover strength of attachment and education and leave out race, religion and age, so the mix of each party by those traits is not decomposed here. The year-by-year distribution of the ratings is not shown beyond the shares at zero and above the midpoint.

    Tables

    Table 1. Partisans rated the other party 20.6 in 2024, down from 48.0 in 1978, and rated their own party 70.5

    Mean feeling thermometer rating of the respondent's own party and of the other party, partisans including leaners, 1978 to 2024, 0 to 100

    conf_highconf_lowestimatemodenseriesyear
    48.8747.1248.00All interviews1,723Other party1978
    47.7245.4346.57All interviews1,310Other party1980
    45.4343.1244.27All interviews1,181Other party1982
    46.8644.9245.89All interviews1,881Other party1984
    47.2545.2546.25All interviews1,796Other party1986
    46.6044.5245.56All interviews1,717Other party1988
    47.8345.7446.78All interviews1,656Other party1990
    42.7440.9541.84All interviews2,098Other party1992
    43.6341.4042.51All interviews1,567Other party1994
    42.3539.9941.17All interviews1,528Other party1996
    42.3439.5940.96All interviews1,104Other party1998
    42.7840.4341.60All interviews1,525Other party2000
    41.0538.0839.57All interviews1,055Other party2004
    35.8833.5034.69All interviews1,979Other party2008
    28.6527.0727.86All interviews5,079Other party2012
    26.9025.1726.04All interviews3,610Other party2016
    19.9118.5819.24All interviews7,174Other party2020
    21.4619.8020.63All interviews5,080Other party2024
    71.8470.1971.01All interviews1,723Own party1978
    73.4671.4872.47All interviews1,310Own party1980
    75.2373.3174.27All interviews1,181Own party1982
    75.6174.0274.81All interviews1,881Own party1984
    75.2773.6674.46All interviews1,796Own party1986
    77.1275.4276.27All interviews1,717Own party1988
    72.0770.3071.19All interviews1,656Own party1990
    70.7569.2069.98All interviews2,098Own party1992
    71.1269.2570.19All interviews1,567Own party1994
    72.7670.7871.77All interviews1,528Own party1996
    71.6369.2270.42All interviews1,104Own party1998
    73.6271.5872.60All interviews1,525Own party2000
    74.8072.5073.65All interviews1,055Own party2004
    71.7369.6970.71All interviews1,979Own party2008
    70.5069.0569.78All interviews5,079Own party2012
    67.9866.2767.13All interviews3,610Own party2016
    72.1770.8971.53All interviews7,174Own party2020
    71.3469.7070.52All interviews5,080Own party2024
    35.8833.5034.69Face-to-face1,979Other party2008
    34.1631.4532.81Face-to-face1,798Other party2012
    32.2229.0130.61Face-to-face1,029Other party2016
    27.3523.6825.52Face-to-face960Other party2024
    71.7369.6970.71Face-to-face1,979Own party2008
    71.0668.6269.84Face-to-face1,798Own party2012
    66.5363.3564.94Face-to-face1,029Own party2016
    70.3266.9468.63Face-to-face960Own party2024
    26.0224.1225.07Web3,281Other party2012
    25.3423.3224.33Web2,581Other party2016
    19.1916.7317.96Web1,850Other party2024
    70.6468.8469.74Web3,281Own party2012
    68.9666.9467.95Web2,581Own party2016
    72.7270.1871.45Web1,850Own party2024

    Views: All interviews (mode = All interviews); Face-to-face only (mode = Face-to-face); Web only (mode = Web).

    Note: Bands are confidence intervals from the Kish effective sample size; they treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample and ignore clustering.

    Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1978-2024; partisans including leaners; weighted (VCF0009z; mode weights VCF0009x and VCF0009y for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024)

    Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/warmth_trend.json

    Table 2. The other-party rating changed by −6.9 points per decade and the own-party rating by −0.7

    Slope of the mean thermometer rating on survey year, points per decade, partisans including leaners, 1978 to 2024

    conf_highconf_lowestimatenperiodwaveswindow
    −0.085−1.37−0.72843,063Own party18Whole record
    −5.90−7.94−6.9243,063Other party18Whole record
    7.574.826.2043,063Gap, own minus other18Whole record
    7.14−3.981.5811,264Own party, 1978 to 19907Split at 1990
    0.466−0.830−0.18233,455Own party, 1990 to 202412Split at 1990
    1.73−3.34−0.80311,264Other party, 1978 to 19907Split at 1990
    −6.78−9.66−8.2233,455Other party, 1990 to 202412Split at 1990

    Views: Whole record (window = Whole record); Split at 1990 (window = Split at 1990).

    Note: Intervals come from a t distribution, which is wider than the normal curve when there are few surveys, with one fewer degree of freedom than the number of surveys.

    Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1978-2024; partisans including leaners; weighted (VCF0009z)

    Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/slopes.json

    Table 3. The share of partisans rating the other party at zero rose from 5.4% in 1978 to 33.2% in 2024

    Percent of partisans including leaners who rate the other party at the coldest possible answer of zero, 1978 to 2024

    conf_highconf_lowestimatemodenseriesyear
    6.574.435.40All interviews1,723Other party1978
    8.375.626.87All interviews1,310Other party1980
    8.815.867.20All interviews1,181Other party1982
    9.236.787.92All interviews1,881Other party1984
    9.136.647.80All interviews1,796Other party1986
    9.546.958.15All interviews1,717Other party1988
    8.926.377.55All interviews1,656Other party1990
    9.577.208.31All interviews2,098Other party1992
    8.245.496.74All interviews1,567Other party1994
    10.447.268.72All interviews1,528Other party1996
    11.507.759.46All interviews1,104Other party1998
    10.006.918.32All interviews1,525Other party2000
    14.6910.3312.35All interviews1,055Other party2004
    16.8212.9014.75All interviews1,979Other party2008
    24.3621.2522.77All interviews5,079Other party2012
    23.9020.6422.23All interviews3,610Other party2016
    41.5738.5140.03All interviews7,174Other party2020
    35.1231.3633.22All interviews5,080Other party2024
    16.8212.9014.75Face-to-face1,979Other party2008
    19.8615.0217.31Face-to-face1,798Other party2012
    20.1914.5117.16Face-to-face1,029Other party2016
    26.2818.9022.38Face-to-face960Other party2024
    27.8923.9125.85Web3,281Other party2012
    26.1322.2024.11Web2,581Other party2016
    41.7635.8838.78Web1,850Other party2024

    Views: All interviews (mode = All interviews); Face-to-face only (mode = Face-to-face); Web only (mode = Web).

    Note: Bands are Wilson intervals on the Kish effective sample size.

    Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1978-2024; partisans including leaners; weighted (VCF0009z; mode weights VCF0009x and VCF0009y for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024)

    Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/zero_share.json

    Table 4. Face-to-face respondents rated the other party 4.9 points warmer than the all-interview average in 2024, and web respondents colder

    Rating of the other party by interview mode and the split of the all-interview fall, partisans including leaners, 2008 to 2024, 0 to 100

    Table 4.1. Rating by mode

    Face-to-face respondents rated the other party 25.5 in 2024, web respondents 18.0 and all interviews 20.6

    Mean feeling thermometer rating of the other party, partisans including leaners, by interview mode, 2008 to 2024, 0 to 100

    conf_highconf_lowestimatemodenseriesyear
    35.8833.5034.69All interviews1,979All interviews2008
    28.6527.0727.86All interviews5,079All interviews2012
    26.9025.1726.04All interviews3,610All interviews2016
    19.9118.5819.24All interviews7,174All interviews2020
    21.4619.8020.63All interviews5,080All interviews2024
    35.8833.5034.69Face-to-face1,979Face-to-face2008
    34.1631.4532.81Face-to-face1,798Face-to-face2012
    32.2229.0130.61Face-to-face1,029Face-to-face2016
    27.3523.6825.52Face-to-face960Face-to-face2024
    26.0224.1225.07Web3,281Web2012
    25.3423.3224.33Web2,581Web2016
    19.1916.7317.96Web1,850Web2024

    Table 4.2. Split of the fall

    Of the 14.1 points the all-interview rating fell from 2008 to 2024, 4.9 are the distance between the 2024 all-interview and face-to-face averages

    Split of the fall in the all-interview mean rating of the other party, partisans including leaners, 2008 to 2024, points on the 0 to 100 thermometer

    conf_highconf_lowkindnstepvalue
    35.8833.50start1,9792008 mean34.69
    −6.93−11.35delta7,059Face-to-face fall−9.18
    −1.49−2.92delta7,059Web in the mix−2.20
    −1.97−3.43delta7,059Panel and paper−2.70
    21.4619.80end5,0802024 mean20.63

    Note: The 2008 study was interviewed in person only, so its face-to-face and all-interview estimates coincide and there is no web estimate. The 2024 all-interview sample also contains re-interviewed panel and paper respondents who belong to neither mode group. The steps of the second tab add to the total within rounding.

    Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 2008-2024; partisans including leaners; weighted (VCF0009z; mode weights VCF0009x and VCF0009y)

    Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/mode_fall.json

    Table 5. Change within groups accounts for 24.5 of the 27.4 points the other-party rating fell

    Decomposition of the change in the mean rating between 1978 and 2024 over strength-of-attachment groups, partisans including leaners, points on the 0 to 100 thermometer

    conf_highconf_lowdecompositionkindnstepvalue
    48.8747.12oth_strengthstart1,7231978 mean48.00
    −23.24−25.78oth_strengthdelta6,803Within groups−24.54
    −1.27−2.31oth_strengthdelta6,803Group mix−1.77
    −0.461−1.65oth_strengthdelta6,803Interaction−1.05
    21.4619.80oth_strengthend5,0802024 mean20.63
    48.8747.12oth_strength_ftfstart1,7231978 mean48.00
    −18.01−22.46oth_strength_ftfdelta2,683Within groups−20.25
    −0.512−1.63oth_strength_ftfdelta2,683Group mix−1.05
    −0.204−2.19oth_strength_ftfdelta2,683Interaction−1.18
    27.3523.68oth_strength_ftfend9602024 mean, face-to-face25.52
    48.9047.15oth_educationstart1,7181978 mean48.03
    −25.43−28.18oth_educationdelta6,753Within groups−26.83
    0.030−0.904oth_educationdelta6,753Group mix−0.442
    0.618−0.797oth_educationdelta6,753Interaction−0.072
    21.5119.85oth_educationend5,0352024 mean20.68
    71.8470.19own_strengthstart1,7231978 mean71.01
    −2.49−4.61own_strengthdelta6,803Within groups−3.57
    2.761.57own_strengthdelta6,803Group mix2.16
    1.420.412own_strengthdelta6,803Interaction0.915
    71.3469.70own_strengthend5,0802024 mean70.52

    Views: Other party (decomposition = oth_strength); Face-to-face, 2024 (decomposition = oth_strength_ftf); Education groups (decomposition = oth_education); Own party (decomposition = own_strength).

    Note: The decomposition holds the 1978 mix of strong partisans, weak partisans and leaners fixed and lets each group's mean change, then adds the change in the mix and the term for both together, so the three steps add to the total. Intervals on the three steps come from redrawing the respondents of each year with replacement many times and taking the 95% interval of the redrawn estimates; the start and end bars use the Kish interval, so the totals differ slightly from the normal-curve intervals used elsewhere in the chapter.

    Note: Groups: strong (party identification 1 or 7), weak (2 or 6) and leaner (3 or 5) on the seven-point scale. The education view uses three groups and leaves out respondents with no education answer, so its total fall is 27.3 against 27.4 in the strength views.

    Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1978 and 2024; partisans including leaners; weighted (VCF0009z; weight_ftf for the face-to-face view)

    Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/decomposition.json

    Table 7. Compared with 2020, the other-party rating differs by −1.3 points among 2024 web respondents and +6.3 among 2024 face-to-face respondents

    Change in the mean thermometer rating of the other party from the 2020 all-interview mean to the 2024 mean, points, partisans including leaners, by 2024 sample

    conf_highconf_lowcoreestimatekind_of_grouplevel_2020level_2024nsamplesubgroup
    2.450.328yes1.39All partisans19.2420.635,0802024 all interviewsAll partisans
    1.97−0.968yes0.501Party20.5821.082,6312024 all interviewsDemocrats
    3.900.847yes2.37Party17.7720.152,4492024 all interviewsRepublicans
    1.20−1.30no−0.048Strength of attachment13.0813.032,4722024 all interviewsStrong partisans
    1.92−2.56no−0.319Strength of attachment28.1627.841,1902024 all interviewsWeak partisans
    6.031.78no3.90Strength of attachment22.7026.601,4182024 all interviewsLeaners
    2.04−0.584no0.730Interest in the campaign14.9215.652,5502024 all interviewsVery interested in the campaign
    3.33−0.371no1.48Interest in the campaign23.6725.151,7682024 all interviewsSomewhat interested
    5.76−1.14no2.31Interest in the campaign24.5526.865472024 all interviewsNot much interested
    0.113−2.68yes−1.28All partisans19.2417.961,8502024 web respondents onlyAll partisans
    −0.363−4.14yes−2.25Party20.5818.329662024 web respondents onlyDemocrats
    1.85−2.28yes−0.219Party17.7717.558842024 web respondents onlyRepublicans
    0.070−3.25no−1.59Strength of attachment13.0811.499002024 web respondents onlyStrong partisans
    0.964−4.99no−2.01Strength of attachment28.1626.144542024 web respondents onlyWeak partisans
    3.31−2.33no0.489Strength of attachment22.7023.194962024 web respondents onlyLeaners
    0.300−3.28no−1.49Interest in the campaign14.9213.438862024 web respondents onlyVery interested in the campaign
    0.390−4.32no−1.96Interest in the campaign23.6721.707342024 web respondents onlySomewhat interested
    2.13−6.33no−2.10Interest in the campaign24.5522.452302024 web respondents onlyNot much interested
    8.224.32yes6.27All partisans19.2425.529602024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews)All partisans
    8.633.12yes5.87Party20.5826.455222024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews)Democrats
    9.443.94yes6.69Party17.7724.464382024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews)Republicans
    5.580.766no3.17Strength of attachment13.0816.264072024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews)Strong partisans
    9.141.23no5.19Strength of attachment28.1633.342232024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews)Weak partisans
    10.833.89no7.36Strength of attachment22.7030.063302024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews)Leaners
    6.651.92no4.29Interest in the campaign14.9219.214922024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews)Very interested in the campaign
    9.592.92no6.25Interest in the campaign23.6729.923332024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews)Somewhat interested

    Views: All partisans and party (core = true); All subgroups.

    Note: n is the smaller of the 2020 and 2024 cell sizes. Subgroups with fewer than 100 respondents or an effective sample below that in either year are not shown.

    Note: The intervals treat the 2020 and 2024 samples as independent. The all-interview 2024 sample includes respondents who were also interviewed in 2020, so its intervals are wider than needed; the web and face-to-face comparisons use fresh 2024 samples.

    Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 2020 and 2024; partisans including leaners; weighted (VCF0009z; weight_web and weight_ftf for the 2024 mode samples)

    Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/group_change.json

    Table 8. The other party's nominee was rated 13.3 in 2024, below the 20.6 for the party, while the own party's nominee was rated 75.2

    Mean feeling thermometer rating of the other party, the other party's presidential nominee (other nominee) and the own party's nominee (own nominee), partisans including leaners, 1968 to 2024, 0 to 100

    conf_highconf_lowestimatemeasurenseriesyear
    55.6352.9154.27Mean rating1,157Other nominee1968
    47.7845.3546.57Mean rating2,203Other nominee1972
    51.0248.7149.87Mean rating1,811Other nominee1976
    45.3942.6344.01Mean rating1,301Other nominee1980
    43.8941.6242.75Mean rating1,903Other nominee1984
    44.6542.3143.48Mean rating1,721Other nominee1988
    40.8938.8839.88Mean rating2,110Other nominee1992
    41.6038.9040.25Mean rating1,524Other nominee1996
    44.2841.7142.99Mean rating1,527Other nominee2000
    36.0632.7034.38Mean rating1,063Other nominee2004
    39.3636.8038.08Mean rating1,990Other nominee2008
    27.1625.3826.27Mean rating5,075Other nominee2012
    16.3714.5415.45Mean rating3,622Other nominee2016
    15.3613.9514.65Mean rating7,026Other nominee2020
    14.1612.4713.32Mean rating5,087Other nominee2024
    48.8747.1248.00Mean rating1,723Other party1978
    47.7245.4346.57Mean rating1,310Other party1980
    45.4343.1244.27Mean rating1,181Other party1982
    46.8644.9245.89Mean rating1,881Other party1984
    47.2545.2546.25Mean rating1,796Other party1986
    46.6044.5245.56Mean rating1,717Other party1988
    47.8345.7446.78Mean rating1,656Other party1990
    42.7440.9541.84Mean rating2,098Other party1992
    43.6341.4042.51Mean rating1,567Other party1994
    42.3539.9941.17Mean rating1,528Other party1996
    42.3439.5940.96Mean rating1,104Other party1998
    42.7840.4341.60Mean rating1,525Other party2000
    41.0538.0839.57Mean rating1,055Other party2004
    35.8833.5034.69Mean rating1,979Other party2008
    28.6527.0727.86Mean rating5,079Other party2012
    26.9025.1726.04Mean rating3,610Other party2016
    19.9118.5819.24Mean rating7,174Other party2020
    21.4619.8020.63Mean rating5,080Other party2024
    76.2373.5774.90Mean rating1,157Own nominee1968
    69.6667.4368.54Mean rating2,203Own nominee1972
    74.8973.0373.96Mean rating1,811Own nominee1976
    70.6368.3269.47Mean rating1,301Own nominee1980
    76.6874.9175.80Mean rating1,903Own nominee1984
    75.1673.1974.18Mean rating1,721Own nominee1988
    70.3668.7369.55Mean rating2,110Own nominee1992
    73.0770.8471.96Mean rating1,524Own nominee1996
    72.4970.3271.40Mean rating1,527Own nominee2000
    75.9273.2074.56Mean rating1,063Own nominee2004
    72.7970.5071.64Mean rating1,990Own nominee2008
    76.5274.9775.74Mean rating5,075Own nominee2012
    65.7963.6564.72Mean rating3,622Own nominee2016
    76.4874.9575.72Mean rating7,026Own nominee2020
    76.1674.2775.22Mean rating5,087Own nominee2024
    −0.775−4.36−2.57Nominee minus party1,301Other nominee minus other party1980
    −1.64−4.63−3.14Nominee minus party1,881Other nominee minus other party1984
    −0.513−3.64−2.08Nominee minus party1,717Other nominee minus other party1988
    −0.619−3.31−1.96Nominee minus party2,098Other nominee minus other party1992
    0.878−2.71−0.918Nominee minus party1,524Other nominee minus other party1996
    3.13−0.3451.39Nominee minus party1,525Other nominee minus other party2000
    −2.95−7.43−5.19Nominee minus party1,055Other nominee minus other party2004
    5.141.643.39Nominee minus party1,979Other nominee minus other party2008
    −0.397−2.78−1.59Nominee minus party5,075Other nominee minus other party2012
    −9.33−11.83−10.58Nominee minus party3,610Other nominee minus other party2016
    −3.62−5.56−4.59Nominee minus party7,026Other nominee minus other party2020
    −6.13−8.50−7.31Nominee minus party5,080Other nominee minus other party2024
    6.714.135.27Share at zero1,157Other nominee1968
    16.4413.4614.89Share at zero2,203Other nominee1972
    9.597.018.21Share at zero1,811Other nominee1976
    14.2810.7012.38Share at zero1,301Other nominee1980
    14.5111.4912.93Share at zero1,903Other nominee1984
    13.7710.6812.14Share at zero1,721Other nominee1988
    13.5910.8012.12Share at zero2,110Other nominee1992
    14.0610.3812.10Share at zero1,524Other nominee1996
    9.926.848.25Share at zero1,527Other nominee2000
    23.3218.0020.53Share at zero1,063Other nominee2004
    14.2110.5912.28Share at zero1,990Other nominee2008
    31.5128.1229.79Share at zero5,075Other nominee2012
    50.6546.7548.70Share at zero3,622Other nominee2016
    59.3156.1957.76Share at zero7,026Other nominee2020
    61.6557.7459.71Share at zero5,087Other nominee2024
    6.574.435.40Share at zero1,723Other party1978
    8.375.626.87Share at zero1,310Other party1980
    8.815.867.20Share at zero1,181Other party1982
    9.236.787.92Share at zero1,881Other party1984
    9.136.647.80Share at zero1,796Other party1986
    9.546.958.15Share at zero1,717Other party1988
    8.926.377.55Share at zero1,656Other party1990
    9.577.208.31Share at zero2,098Other party1992
    8.245.496.74Share at zero1,567Other party1994
    10.447.268.72Share at zero1,528Other party1996
    11.507.759.46Share at zero1,104Other party1998
    10.006.918.32Share at zero1,525Other party2000
    14.6910.3312.35Share at zero1,055Other party2004
    16.8212.9014.75Share at zero1,979Other party2008
    24.3621.2522.77Share at zero5,079Other party2012
    23.9020.6422.23Share at zero3,610Other party2016
    41.5738.5140.03Share at zero7,174Other party2020
    35.1231.3633.22Share at zero5,080Other party2024

    Views: Mean rating (measure = Mean rating); Nominee minus party (measure = Nominee minus party); Share at zero (measure = Share at zero).

    Note: Nominees are the major-party presidential candidates of each election, so the same person can appear in several years (Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024) while the other party's nominee for Republican respondents is Clinton in 2016, Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024. In the second view n is the smaller of the party and nominee sample sizes, and the interval treats those two overlapping samples as independent, so it is wider than needed.

    Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1968-2024; partisans including leaners; weighted (VCF0009z; mode weights VCF0009x and VCF0009y for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024)

    Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/party_vs_candidate.json

    All estimates

    Every fact in facts.json (147), sorted by id. The same values as JSON: facts.json.

    Fact idValueUnitEstimandPopulationPeriodIntervalnWeightsSourceNote
    biden_rep_202020.2points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Republicans, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees202095% CI 19.2 to 21.33,309weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    coh_new_200044.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, born 1975 or later200095% CI 40.3 to 47.9133weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    coh_new_202422.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, born 1975 or later202495% CI 20.8 to 23.42,057weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    coh_old_197848.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, born 1942 or earlier197895% CI 46.9 to 49.31,022weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    coh_old_202422.0points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, born 1942 or earlier202495% CI 17.9 to 26.2243weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    coth_196854.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees196895% CI 52.9 to 55.61,157weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    coth_202413.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees202495% CI 12.5 to 14.25,087weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    coth_change_2024−1.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees2020 to 202495% CI −2.4 to −0.212,113weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    coth_ftf_202416.7points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees2024, face-to-face respondents95% CI 14.7 to 18.7966weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    coth_web_202411.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees2024, web respondents95% CI 10.4 to 12.91,854weight_web (VCF0009y)ANES Cumulative Data File
    cown_198475.8points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees198495% CI 74.9 to 76.71,903weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    cown_201664.7points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees201695% CI 63.7 to 65.83,622weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    cown_202075.7points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees202095% CI 75.0 to 76.57,026weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    cown_202475.2points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees202495% CI 74.3 to 76.25,087weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    czero_19685.3%percent of partisans rating the other party's presidential nominee at zeroweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees196895% CI 4.1% to 6.7%1,157weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    czero_202057.8%percent of partisans rating the other party's presidential nominee at zeroweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees202095% CI 56.2% to 59.3%7,026weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    czero_202459.7%percent of partisans rating the other party's presidential nominee at zeroweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees202495% CI 57.7% to 61.7%5,087weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    dem_oth_197848.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, democrats197895% CI 47.2 to 49.51,088weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    dem_oth_202421.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, democrats202495% CI 20.0 to 22.22,631weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    dem_oth_fall27.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerfall in the weighted mean other-party rating from the first to the last yearly estimate (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, democrats1978 to 202495% CI 25.6 to 28.93,719weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    design_se_20240.36standard error of the mean, points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerall-interview other-party mean: Taylor-linearised standard error from the variance strata and primary sampling units of the 2024 Time Series filepartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, 2024 Time Series file20245,080pre-election full-sample weight (V240107a)ANES 2024 Time Series
    edu_col_197846.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, college degree or more197895% CI 44.9 to 48.4317weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    edu_col_202420.2points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, college degree or more202495% CI 19.0 to 21.32,353weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    edu_hs_197848.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, high school or less197895% CI 47.4 to 49.81,041weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    edu_hs_202422.0points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, high school or less202495% CI 20.2 to 23.71,102weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    fall_all_08126.8points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2008 to 201295% CI 5.4 to 8.37,058weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    fall_all_082414.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerfall in the all-interview mean (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2008 to 202495% CI 12.6 to 15.57,059weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    fall_ftf_08121.9points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2008 to 201295% CI 0.1 to 3.73,777weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    fall_ftf_08249.2points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerfall in the face-to-face mean (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2008 to 202495% CI 6.9 to 11.47,059weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    fall_ftf_12247.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2012 to 202495% CI 5.0 to 9.62,758weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    fall_mode_08244.9points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometergap between the all-interview and the face-to-face mean in 2024 (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2008 to 202495% CI 3.5 to 6.37,059weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    fall_web_12247.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2012 to 202495% CI 5.6 to 8.75,131weight_web (VCF0009y)ANES Cumulative Data File
    floor_cell100respondentsminimum number of respondents (and of effective respondents) for a plotted cellcells of a subgroup by year table1978 to 2024none (constant)ANES Cumulative Data File
    gap_197823.0points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties197895% CI 21.8 to 24.21,723weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    gap_198830.7points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties198895% CI 29.3 to 32.11,717weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    gap_202052.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202095% CI 51.2 to 53.37,174weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    gap_202449.9points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202495% CI 48.6 to 51.25,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    harris_rep_202416.2points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Republicans, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees202495% CI 14.9 to 17.52,451weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    harris_rep_change−4.0points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Republicans, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees2020 to 202495% CI −5.7 to −2.45,760weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    leaner_oth_197850.5points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, leaners197895% CI 49.2 to 51.8500weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    leaner_oth_202426.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, leaners202495% CI 24.9 to 28.31,418weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    leaner_own_197862.7points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, leaners197895% CI 61.4 to 64.0500weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    leaner_own_202459.8points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, leaners202495% CI 58.3 to 61.41,418weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    mode_other_08242.7points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerpart of the 2024 gap that comes from panel and paper respondents (their share of the all-interview weight times the distance between the face-to-face mean and their mean) (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202495% CI 2.0 to 3.45,080weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    mode_web_08242.2points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerpart of the 2024 gap that comes from web respondents (their share of the all-interview weight times the distance between the face-to-face mean and their mean) (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202495% CI 1.5 to 2.95,080weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    model_se_20240.42standard error of the mean, points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerall-interview other-party mean: standard error from the Kish effective sample sizepartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, 2024 Time Series file20245,080pre-election full-sample weight (V240107a)ANES 2024 Time Series
    n_excl_all3subgroupscount of subgroup changes whose 95% interval excludes zerosubgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years2020 to 2024, all 2024 interviewsnone (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_excl_ftf8subgroupscount of subgroup changes whose 95% interval excludes zerosubgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years2020 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondentsnone (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_excl_web1subgroupscount of subgroup changes whose 95% interval excludes zerosubgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years2020 to 2024, 2024 web respondentsnone (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_ftf_2024960respondentscountpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2024, fresh face-to-face samplenone (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_groups12groupscount of groupsstrength, education and birth-cohort groups with at least four yearly estimates1978 to 2024none (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_nom_below9electionscount of elections in which the other party's nominee was rated below the party, with a 95% interval for the difference that excludes zeropresidential elections from 1980 to 2024 with both series1980 to 2024none (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_nom_elections12electionscount of electionspresidential elections from 1980 to 2024 with both series1980 to 2024none (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_other_20242,270respondentscountpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2024, re-interviewed 2016-2020 panel and paper casesnone (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_paired43,063respondentscount of respondents in the samplepartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties18 surveys, 1978 to 2024none (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_sub_all9subgroupscount of subgroup changes reportedsubgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years2020 to 2024, all 2024 interviewsnone (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_sub_ftf8subgroupscount of subgroup changes reportedsubgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years2020 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondentsnone (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_sub_web9subgroupscount of subgroup changes reportedsubgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years2020 to 2024, 2024 web respondentsnone (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_waves18surveyscount of survey yearsANES time-series studies with both party thermometers1978 to 2024none (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    n_web_20241,850respondentscountpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2024, fresh web sample without paper casesnone (count)ANES Cumulative Data File
    nom_above_20083.4points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerother party's nominee's mean rating minus the party's mean rating, from two overlapping samples treated as independent (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties (party) or both nominees (nominee)200895% CI 1.6 to 5.13,969weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    nom_above_2008_dem5.7points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerother party's nominee's mean rating minus the party's mean rating, from two overlapping samples treated as independent (95% interval, independent samples)Democrats, leaners included, with a rating of both parties (party) or both nominees (nominee)200895% CI 3.5 to 7.92,682weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    nom_above_2008_rep0.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerother party's nominee's mean rating minus the party's mean rating, from two overlapping samples treated as independent (95% interval, independent samples)Republicans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties (party) or both nominees (nominee)200895% CI −2.6 to 3.11,287weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    nom_below_20121.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerother party's mean rating minus its nominee's mean rating, from two overlapping samples treated as independent (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties (party) or both nominees (nominee)201295% CI 0.4 to 2.810,154weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    nom_below_20247.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerother party's mean rating minus its nominee's mean rating, from two overlapping samples treated as independent (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties (party) or both nominees (nominee)202495% CI 6.1 to 8.510,167weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_197848.0points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties197895% CI 47.1 to 48.91,723weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_198845.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties198895% CI 44.5 to 46.61,717weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_199046.8points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties199095% CI 45.7 to 47.81,656weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_200834.7points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties200895% CI 33.5 to 35.91,979weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_201626.0points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties201695% CI 25.2 to 26.93,610weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_202019.2points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202095% CI 18.6 to 19.97,174weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_202420.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202495% CI 19.8 to 21.55,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_fall27.4points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 202495% CI 26.2 to 28.66,803weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_ftf_200834.7points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2008, face-to-face respondents95% CI 33.5 to 35.91,979weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_ftf_202425.5points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2024, face-to-face respondents95% CI 23.7 to 27.4960weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_other_202417.5points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2024, respondents in neither mode-weight group95% CI 16.3 to 18.62,270weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_web_201225.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2012, web respondents95% CI 24.1 to 26.03,281weight_web (VCF0009y)ANES Cumulative Data File
    oth_web_202418.0points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2024, web respondents95% CI 16.7 to 19.21,850weight_web (VCF0009y)ANES Cumulative Data File
    own_197871.0points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties197895% CI 70.2 to 71.81,723weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    own_198876.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties198895% CI 75.4 to 77.11,717weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    own_201667.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties201695% CI 66.3 to 68.03,610weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    own_202470.5points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202495% CI 69.7 to 71.35,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    own_change−0.5points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 202495% CI −1.7 to 0.76,803weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    own_drift_total−3.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerwhole-period slope per decade times 4.6 decadespartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 2024 (4.6 decades)95% CI −6.3 to −0.443,063weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    own_ftf_change_0824−2.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2008 to 202495% CI −4.1 to −0.12,939weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    rep_oth_197847.4points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, republicans197895% CI 46.1 to 48.7635weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    rep_oth_202420.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, republicans202495% CI 18.9 to 21.42,449weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    rep_oth_fall27.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerfall in the weighted mean other-party rating from the first to the last yearly estimate (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, republicans1978 to 202495% CI 25.5 to 29.03,084weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    share_mode_082434.7%percent of the all-interview fallgap between the all-interview and face-to-face 2024 means as a share of the all-interview fall (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2008 to 202495% CI 23.8% to 46.6%7,059weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    slope_gap+6.2points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 17 degrees of freedompartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 2024 (18 surveys)95% CI 4.8 to 7.643,063weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    slope_oth−6.9points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 17 degrees of freedompartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 2024 (18 surveys)95% CI −7.9 to −5.943,063weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    slope_oth_post−8.2points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 11 degrees of freedompartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1990 to 2024 (12 surveys)95% CI −9.7 to −6.833,455weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    slope_oth_pre−0.8points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 6 degrees of freedompartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 1990 (7 surveys)95% CI −3.3 to 1.711,264weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    slope_oth_pre88−1.8points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 5 degrees of freedompartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 1988 (6 surveys)95% CI −4.0 to 0.59,608weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    slope_oth_pre96−3.2points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 9 degrees of freedompartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 1996 (10 surveys)95% CI −4.5 to −1.916,457weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    slope_own−0.7points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 17 degrees of freedompartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 2024 (18 surveys)95% CI −1.4 to −0.143,063weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    slope_own_post−0.2points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 11 degrees of freedompartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1990 to 2024 (12 surveys)95% CI −0.8 to 0.533,455weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    slope_own_pre+1.6points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decadeslope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 6 degrees of freedompartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 1990 (7 surveys)95% CI −4.0 to 7.111,264weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_edu_comp_fall0.4points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the other-party rating over three education groups: composition (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties and an education answer1978 to 202495% CI 0.0 to 0.96,753weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_edu_total_fall27.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the other-party rating over three education groups: total (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties and an education answer1978 to 202495% CI 26.2 to 28.66,753weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_edu_within_fall26.8points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the other-party rating over three education groups: within (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties and an education answer1978 to 202495% CI 25.4 to 28.26,753weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_ftf_total_fall22.5points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the other-party rating over strength groups: total (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondents95% CI 20.5 to 24.42,683weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_ftf_within_fall20.2points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the other-party rating over strength groups: within (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondents95% CI 18.0 to 22.52,683weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_oth_comp_fall1.8points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the other-party rating over strong, weak and leaning partisans: composition (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 202495% CI 1.3 to 2.36,803weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_oth_inter_fall1.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the other-party rating over strong, weak and leaning partisans: interaction (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 202495% CI 0.5 to 1.76,803weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_oth_total_fall27.4points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the other-party rating over strong, weak and leaning partisans: total (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 202495% CI 26.2 to 28.56,803weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_oth_within_fall24.5points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the other-party rating over strong, weak and leaning partisans: within (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 202495% CI 23.2 to 25.86,803weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_oth_within_share89.7%percent of the total changeshift-share of the other-party rating over strong, weak and leaning partisans: within as a share of the total change (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 202495% CI 87.8% to 91.7%6,803weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_own_comp+2.2points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the own-party rating over strength groups: composition (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 202495% CI 1.6 to 2.86,803weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_own_inter+0.9points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the own-party rating over strength groups: interaction (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 202495% CI 0.4 to 1.46,803weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_own_total−0.5points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the own-party rating over strength groups: total (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 202495% CI −1.6 to 0.66,803weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    ss_own_within−3.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometershift-share of the own-party rating over strength groups: within (shift-share term (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year))partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties1978 to 202495% CI −4.6 to −2.56,803weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    strong_oth_197841.2points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans197895% CI 39.2 to 43.3468weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    strong_oth_202413.0points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans202495% CI 12.1 to 14.02,472weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    strong_own_197881.5points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans197895% CI 80.0 to 83.0468weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    strong_own_198084.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans198095% CI 82.8 to 85.8405weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    strong_own_198884.5points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans198895% CI 83.3 to 85.7619weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    strong_own_202480.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans202495% CI 79.6 to 81.62,472weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    strong_share_197827.2%percent of partisansweighted share who are strong partisans (95% Wilson interval)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties197895% CI 25.1% to 29.3%1,723weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    strong_share_202446.2%percent of partisansweighted share who are strong partisans (95% Wilson interval)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202495% CI 44.2% to 48.2%5,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    thaw_all_all+1.4points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerchange in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2020 to 2024, all 2024 interviews95% CI 0.3 to 2.45,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    thaw_ftf_all+6.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerchange in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2020 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondents95% CI 4.3 to 8.2960weight_ftf (VCF0009x) for 2024; weight (VCF0009z) for 2020ANES Cumulative Data File
    thaw_web_all−1.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerchange in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2020 to 2024, 2024 web respondents95% CI −2.7 to 0.11,850weight_web (VCF0009y) for 2024; weight (VCF0009z) for 2020ANES Cumulative Data File
    thaw_web_dem−2.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerchange in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, democrats2020 to 2024, 2024 web respondents95% CI −4.1 to −0.4966weight_web (VCF0009y) for 2024; weight (VCF0009z) for 2020ANES Cumulative Data File
    therm_max100points on the feeling thermometerhighest answer the feeling thermometer allows (a definition of the scale, not an estimate)answers to the feeling thermometer1978 to 2024none (constant)ANES Cumulative Data File
    therm_min0points on the feeling thermometerlowest answer the feeling thermometer allows (a definition of the scale, not an estimate)answers to the feeling thermometer1978 to 2024none (constant)ANES Cumulative Data File
    trump_dem_20209.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Democrats, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees202095% CI 8.7 to 10.53,717weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    trump_dem_202410.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Democrats, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees202495% CI 9.5 to 11.82,636weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    trump_dem_change+1.1points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)Democrats, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees2020 to 202495% CI −0.4 to 2.56,353weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    warm_197831.2%percent of partisans rating the other party above the neutral midpointweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties197895% CI 29.1% to 33.5%1,723weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    warm_20246.5%percent of partisans rating the other party above the neutral midpointweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202495% CI 5.6% to 7.6%5,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    weak_oth_197850.5points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, weak partisans197895% CI 49.3 to 51.7755weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    weak_oth_202427.8points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, weak partisans202495% CI 26.1 to 29.51,190weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    weak_own_197870.0points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, weak partisans197895% CI 68.8 to 71.2755weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    weak_own_202464.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, weak partisans202495% CI 62.9 to 65.81,190weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    web_colder_20127.7points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties201295% CI 6.1 to 9.45,079weight_ftf (VCF0009x); weight_web (VCF0009y)ANES Cumulative Data File
    web_colder_20166.3points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties201695% CI 4.4 to 8.23,610weight_ftf (VCF0009x); weight_web (VCF0009y)ANES Cumulative Data File
    web_colder_20247.6points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerdifference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202495% CI 5.3 to 9.82,810weight_ftf (VCF0009x); weight_web (VCF0009y)ANES Cumulative Data File
    wshare_ftf_202435.1%percent of the all-interview weightshare of the summed all-interview weight held by the grouppartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2024, face-to-face respondents5,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    wshare_other_202433.7%percent of the all-interview weightshare of the summed all-interview weight held by the grouppartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2024, panel and paper respondents5,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    wshare_web_202431.3%percent of the all-interview weightshare of the summed all-interview weight held by the grouppartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2024, web respondents5,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    zero_19785.4%percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties197895% CI 4.4% to 6.6%1,723weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    zero_202040.0%percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202095% CI 38.5% to 41.6%7,174weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    zero_202433.2%percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties202495% CI 31.4% to 35.1%5,080weight (VCF0009z)ANES Cumulative Data File
    zero_ftf_200814.8%percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2008, face-to-face respondents95% CI 12.9% to 16.8%1,979weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    zero_ftf_202422.4%percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2024, face-to-face respondents95% CI 18.9% to 26.3%960weight_ftf (VCF0009x)ANES Cumulative Data File
    zero_web_202438.8%percent of partisans rating the other party at zeroweighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size)partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties2024, web respondents95% CI 35.9% to 41.8%1,850weight_web (VCF0009y)ANES Cumulative Data File

    Definitions

    Feeling thermometer
    A 0 to 100 rating of a group or person, where 0 is the coldest feeling and 100 the warmest. The American National Election Studies ask respondents to rate parties, candidates and social groups this way.
    Partisan leaner
    A respondent who first says they are independent but, when asked, says they lean toward one party. Most figures group leaners with the party they lean toward, and each chapter says which grouping it uses.
    Survey weights
    Numbers that scale each respondent so the sample matches the population on known traits such as age, race, education and region. A weighted average counts a respondent with a large weight for more than one with a small weight.
    Confidence interval
    A range around an estimate that would contain the true value in 95% of repeated samples if the sampling model held. The book reports 95% intervals unless it says otherwise.
    Effective sample size
    The number of equally weighted respondents that would give the same precision as the weighted sample. It is smaller than the raw count when the weights vary a lot, and it sets how wide the confidence interval is.
    Affective polarization
    The gap between how warmly people feel toward their own party and how coldly they feel toward the other party. It measures feeling, not disagreement on issues.
    Survey mode
    How respondents were interviewed: in person, by phone, on paper or online. Mode can change answers, so a change in mode can look like a change in opinion.
    Clustered standard errors
    Standard errors that allow answers within the same group, such as the same county or the same week, to be related. They are wider than ordinary errors when members of a group resemble each other.
    Cohort
    People born in the same period, such as the same decade. Comparing cohorts shows whether a difference comes from when people were born, as distinct from their age or the year they were surveyed.

    Methods

    Sample: respondents to the American National Election Studies (ANES) time series, from the Cumulative Data File, who identify as Democrats or Republicans on the seven-point party identification scale with leaners included (codes 1 to 3 and 5 to 7) and who gave a valid rating of both parties (the paired sample): 43,063 respondents in 18 surveys from 1978 to 2024. Series for presidential nominees use partisans with a valid rating of both major-party nominees, 39,120 respondents in the elections of 1968 to 2024. Pure independents are excluded because they have no own party. Each survey year is a separate cross-section of people, so every change is a change in a group average and not a change within persons. Measure: the feeling thermometer, from 0 (coldest) to 100 (warmest); own party is the party the respondent identifies with or leans toward. The gap is the respondent's own-party rating minus the other-party rating, averaged. Weights: the full-sample weight VCF0009z. Mode: weight_ftf (VCF0009x) on the fresh face-to-face sample and weight_web (VCF0009y) on the fresh web sample in 2008 (face-to-face only), 2012, 2016 and 2024; 2020 has no mode weights, and the 2024 re-interviewed panel and paper respondents belong to neither mode group and enter the all-interview estimate only. Estimators: weighted means and weighted shares by year with intervals on the Kish effective sample size (normal for means, Wilson for shares); they treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample and ignore clustering and stratification. Changes between two years or two samples combine the two standard errors in quadrature, which treats the samples as independent. Slopes: weighted least squares of the rating on year (in decades) over respondents, standard errors clustered on survey year, t interval with the number of surveys minus one degrees of freedom. Shift-share: with s the weighted share of a group and m its weighted mean, within = sum s0 (m1 - m0), composition = sum (s1 - s0) m0 and interaction = sum (s1 - s0)(m1 - m0), base 1978, end 2024, so the three terms add to the total change; intervals are percentile intervals from a bootstrap that resamples respondents within each year (2000 replicates, seed 12345), as are the intervals for the mode-composition terms. Strength groups: strong (party identification 1 or 7), weak (2 or 6), leaner (3 or 5). Education and birth cohort are recodes of the file's categories. Suppression: yearly cells need at least 150 respondents and an effective sample of 100 (timeline floor); subgroup-year cells need at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100; a group needs estimates in four or more surveys. Interviews before 2008 are not split by mode. Mode terms for 2024: with s a group's share of the all-interview weight, m its mean and F the weight_ftf mean, the gap between the face-to-face and all-interview means is s_web (F - m_web) + s_other (F - m_other) plus a remainder for weighting the face-to-face respondents two ways; the bootstrap is the one used for the other mode terms. Design check (2024 only): the standard error of the 2024 all-interview other-party mean was recomputed from the variance strata (V240107d) and primary sampling units (V240107c) of the 2024 Time Series file, with the pre-election full-sample weight V240107a, by Taylor linearization with replacement within strata and the partisans with both ratings as a domain of the full sample; the sample and the mean equal the Cumulative File's. The Cumulative File used here has no strata or primary sampling units, so no other year is checked. The difference between a nominee average and the party average in an election treats two overlapping samples as independent.

    What these data cannot show

    • The ratings come from repeated cross-sections, so they cannot show that any partisan grew colder.
    • The decomposition shows that the fall is not accounted for by a shift among strength or education groups.
    • It does not rule out that older cohorts leave the samples while younger ones enter, or that people who change party move between groups.
    • The cohort lines cannot separate age, cohort and period.
    • A panel that re-interviews the same people is needed to describe change within persons.
    • The ANES 2016, 2020 and 2024 panel exists but is not in the files used here.
    • The mode results rest on mode weights that exist for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024.
    • The gap between the all-interview and face-to-face averages combines how people answer in each mode with who answers in each mode, and it is a decomposition of the record and not an estimate of a mode effect.
    • The 2024 gap also includes the panel and paper respondents, who belong to neither mode group.
    • Interviews before 2008 are not split by mode.
    • The 2016 to 2020 change and the 2020 to 2024 change cannot be split by mode at all.
    • A thermometer rating of a party may reflect feelings about party elites more than about fellow citizens who support it [10], and a rating of zero is the coldest answer and not a measure of behavior.
    • What the ratings go with in voting, in willingness to live near or work with the other side and in support for political violence belongs to Companion 2.2a, Negative partisanship (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/negative-partisanship) and Chapter 5.4, Political violence and democratic norms (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/political-violence-and-democratic-norms).
    • Feelings toward social groups are in Planned, Party and feelings toward social groups (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/party-and-feelings-toward-groups; planned).
    • Accounts that start from partisanship as a social identity [11], from the alignment of party with other traits (Chapter 1.1, Party and ideology (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/party-and-ideology)) or from negative partisanship [12] are candidate explanations, and the ratings alone cannot tell them apart.
    • The intervals are model based and ignore the ANES sampling design.
    • The check against the design variables in the note on intervals covers 2024 only, so the intervals for other years are not compared with design-based intervals.
    • The split year 1990 was chosen after looking at the series, and the pre-1990 slope changes with the split year.
    • Each sample in the 2020 to 2024 comparison reports up to nine changes without adjustment for multiple comparisons, so an interval that excludes zero in one sample is weaker evidence than it looks.
    • The nominee series rates people, and the same Republican nominee appears in 2016, 2020 and 2024, so it mixes feelings about a party with feelings about a person.
    • The Democratic nominee differs in each of those years, so a change in Republicans' ratings of the other nominee between elections compares different people.
    • The decompositions cover strength of attachment and education and leave out race, religion and age, so the mix of each party by those traits is not decomposed here.
    • The year-by-year distribution of the ratings is not shown beyond the shares at zero and above the midpoint.

    References

    1. Kish, Leslie (1965). Survey Sampling. John Wiley and Sons.
    2. Wilson, Edwin B. (1927). Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 22(158): 209-212. doi:10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953
    3. Iyengar, Shanto; Sood, Gaurav; Lelkes, Yphtach (2012). Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3): 405-431. academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/76/3/405/1894274
    4. Iyengar, Shanto; Lelkes, Yphtach; Levendusky, Matthew; Malhotra, Neil; Westwood, Sean J. (2019). The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 22: 129-146. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
    5. Iyengar, Shanto; Krupenkin, Masha (2018). The Strengthening of Partisan Affect. Political Psychology 39(S1): 201-218. doi:10.1111/pops.12487
    6. Finkel, Eli J.; Bail, Christopher A.; Cikara, Mina; Ditto, Peter H.; Iyengar, Shanto; Klar, Samara; Mason, Lilliana; McGrath, Mary C.; Nyhan, Brendan; Rand, David G.; Skitka, Linda J.; Tucker, Joshua A.; Van Bavel, Jay J.; Wang, Cynthia S.; Druckman, James N. (2020). Political Sectarianism in America. Science 370(6516): 533-536. doi:10.1126/science.abe1715
    7. American National Election Studies (2022). Methodology Report for the ANES 2020 Time Series Study. Stanford University and the University of Michigan. electionstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/anes_timeseries_2020_methodology_report.pdf
    8. American National Election Studies (2025). ANES 2024 Time Series Study Full Release: User Guide and Codebook. Stanford University and the University of Michigan. electionstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/anes_timeseries_2024_userguidecodebook_20250808.pdf
    9. Kitagawa, Evelyn M. (1955). Components of a Difference Between Two Rates. Journal of the American Statistical Association 50(272): 1168-1194. doi:10.1080/01621459.1955.10501299
    10. Druckman, James N.; Levendusky, Matthew S. (2019). What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?. Public Opinion Quarterly 83(1): 114-122. academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/83/1/114/5486527
    11. Mason, Lilliana (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago Press. press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/U/bo27527354.html
    12. Abramowitz, Alan I.; Webster, Steven W. (2016). The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century. Electoral Studies 41: 12-22. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379415001857

    Provenance

    Pipeline version
    1.0.0
    Build script
    book3/chapters/feelings-toward-the-other-party/build.py (sha256 1ce0f1ebeb4364945bbc231931df59000cbc2544033fd4b52dd0588045c66124)
    Built on
    2026-09-30
    Site commit
    16414b2c7257546a7042d0b1734657f208999f60

    Inputs

    FileSize (bytes)SHA-256, first 1 MBSHA-256, last 1 MB
    data/anes/anes2024_ts/anes_timeseries_2024_spss_20260519.sav12,757,0943107c838755f88353d0e3e39b2c3d5f76a2888cf56a179e3acac84ab431335d2bb318a018a39b4cf87ccc91b50a5b7c5b41746d28c0226f4a6c176e8c74966d6
    data/anes/anes_cdf_clean.parquet15,640,720b3f0c2d8ae5673b2c40cf6df71318ea3f712cd845c4f1aad0460f28d1b02264304f06dae56b65649291caf6cf77aab9767d9c92d0c2669c6d3655d9063970583

    Outputs

    FileSHA-256
    facts.json3f7c8674564306087618216b5acb6cc2c9d38a854ee535af326884644a628dd8
    figures/decomposition.json1b7f3b5dcdaeb3e4e324c12682473f34066be36c3486f273ba3f75e9278a81ff
    figures/group_change.json9b0ea81126627ee9a597ab9066487a9cd56392950c14a81b8d0b1e3992a29eb2
    figures/group_trends.jsonf290718d94b7379deb740fd1e894294ea05d86036883573fa2ffed87d99eba31
    figures/mode_fall.jsone84642beec68332952e6c43c527dd9d1f765de3a269eea1dd09a37cfe726fd1d
    figures/party_vs_candidate.json491b005ed02cb0b624d8778b1945c65099d825ccb5e2f9492860efc0803ce071
    figures/slopes.jsonbecaa0b12fe59ce774fbc67ae6e66f7636302977a544279266819c8082e083a3
    figures/warmth_trend.json20bbb5ccd4270b309bda3752dc2352dcf59271746398133164e6ad2a0ad70f1c
    figures/zero_share.json2d1b3b1e63499fe82ce24f7accad8c65f88b3cd245cbccb24e356522febda8be
    meta.jsonfc464011521d56d19f0ce53a02a718ca15177406a2afe0218d6ed1786891219f
    refs.jsoncfada010743aa86084889b1dfc4170b5af26c9b3064df3aefad09274bff6c423

    Machine formats