# Feelings toward the other party: report

Chapter 2.2 of The Public Mind, by Vishal Singh (NYU Stern). Generated from the chapter's data files; the reading version is at https://vishalsingh.org/politics/feelings-toward-the-other-party. Table n of this report is figure n of the chapter.

## 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: 2026-09-30
- 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
- Report: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/feelings-toward-the-other-party/report
- Markdown: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/feelings-toward-the-other-party/report.md
- BibTeX key: singh2026feelingstowardtheotherparty

```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.

| Estimand | Population | Period | Value | Interval | n | Weights | Source | Fact id |
| --- | --- | --- | ---: | --- | ---: | --- | --- | --- |
| weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 | 48.0 | 95% CI 47.1 to 48.9 | 1,723 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File | oth_1978 |
| weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024 | 20.6 | 95% CI 19.8 to 21.5 | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File | oth_2024 |
| weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 | 71.0 | 95% CI 70.2 to 71.8 | 1,723 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File | own_1978 |
| weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024 | 70.5 | 95% CI 69.7 to 71.3 | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File | own_2024 |
| weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 | 23.0 | 95% CI 21.8 to 24.2 | 1,723 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File | gap_1978 |
| weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024 | 49.9 | 95% CI 48.6 to 51.2 | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File | gap_2024 |
| lowest answer the feeling thermometer allows (a definition of the scale, not an estimate) | answers to the feeling thermometer | 1978 to 2024 | 0 |   |   | none (constant) | ANES Cumulative Data File | therm_min |
| highest answer the feeling thermometer allows (a definition of the scale, not an estimate) | answers to the feeling thermometer | 1978 to 2024 | 100 |   |   | none (constant) | ANES Cumulative Data File | therm_max |
| count of survey years | ANES time-series studies with both party thermometers | 1978 to 2024 | 18 |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File | n_waves |
| count of respondents in the sample | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 18 surveys, 1978 to 2024 | 43,063 |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File | n_paired |
| all-interview other-party mean: Taylor-linearised standard error from the variance strata and primary sampling units of the 2024 Time Series file | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, 2024 Time Series file | 2024 | 0.36 |   | 5,080 | pre-election full-sample weight (V240107a) | ANES 2024 Time Series | design_se_2024 |
| all-interview other-party mean: standard error from the Kish effective sample size | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, 2024 Time Series file | 2024 | 0.42 |   | 5,080 | pre-election full-sample weight (V240107a) | ANES 2024 Time Series | model_se_2024 |
| weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1988 | 30.7 | 95% CI 29.3 to 32.1 | 1,717 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File | gap_1988 |
| weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1988 | 76.3 | 95% CI 75.4 to 77.1 | 1,717 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File | own_1988 |
| weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1988 | 45.6 | 95% CI 44.5 to 46.6 | 1,717 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File | oth_1988 |

## Findings

Among Democrats and Republicans in the American National Election Studies (ANES), the average rating of the other party on the feeling thermometer fell from 48.0 in 1978 to 20.6 in 2024. The average rating of the own party went from 71.0 to 70.5 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 23.0 points to 49.9.

The thermometer asks respondents to rate a party or a person from cold to warm on a scale from 0 to 100. The ratings here come from the ANES Cumulative Data File: 18 surveys from 1978 to 2024 and 43,063 respondents who identify with a party or lean toward one (leaners 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 weight. (Note: Intervals come from the Kish effective sample size [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 0.36 points from the survey's strata and primary sampling units and 0.42 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 polarization [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 23.0 in 1978 to 30.7 in 1988. More of that rise comes from the own-party rating, which went from 71.0 to 76.3, than from the other-party rating, which went from 48.0 to 45.6. Whether the fall in warmth matters for voting and other behavior is the subject of Companion 2.2a, Negative partisanship (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/negative-partisanship), and how far apart partisans are on issues is in Planned, Affective and issue polarization (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/affective-and-issue-polarization; planned). This chapter describes the ratings and then asks how much of the change goes with a change in survey mode, 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) in 1978 and 20.6 (95% CI 19.8 to 21.5) in 2024, a fall of 27.4 (95% CI 26.2 to 28.6) points. It was 46.8 in 1990, so most of the fall came after 1990. The gap between the two ratings peaked at 52.3 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) points per decade, an interval that excludes zero. The 1978 and 2024 endpoints differ by −0.5 (95% CI −1.7 to 0.7) points, an interval that includes zero, while the line fitted through all 18 surveys changes by −3.3 (95% CI −6.3 to −0.4) points, because own-party ratings were high in the 1980s (76.3 in 1988) and low in 2016 (67.1).

The other-party rating changes by −6.9 (95% CI −7.9 to −5.9) points per decade, and the gap by +6.2 (95% CI 4.8 to 7.6). Standard errors are clustered 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) 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), an interval that includes zero, and from 1990 it is −8.2 (95% CI −9.7 to −6.8). 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), and for 1978 to 1996 it is −3.2 (95% CI −4.5 to −1.9), 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%) of partisans rated the other party at zero, the coldest answer the scale allows. The share peaked at 40.0% in 2020 and was 33.2% (95% CI 31.4% to 35.1%) in 2024 (Table 3). The share rating the other party above the neutral midpoint moved the other way, from 31.2% in 1978 to 6.5% 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%) among face-to-face respondents and 38.8% (95% CI 35.9% to 41.8%) among web respondents, so the pooled 33.2% depends on the mix of modes. Inside face-to-face interviews the share still rose, from 14.8% 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]. (Note: The 2024 analysis sample has 960 partisans from the new face-to-face sample, 1,850 from the new web sample and 2,270 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% of the total, the web sample 31.3% and the group in neither 33.7%. The group in neither rates the other party at 17.5 (95% CI 16.3 to 18.6), close to the web value of 18.0.) 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) points in 2012, 6.3 (95% CI 4.4 to 8.2) in 2016 and 7.6 (95% CI 5.3 to 9.8) 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) 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). The remaining 4.9 (95% CI 3.5 to 6.3) points, 34.7% (95% CI 23.8% to 46.6%) 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) points and the face-to-face rating by 1.9 (95% CI 0.1 to 3.7). 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) points and the web rating by 7.1 (95% CI 5.6 to 8.7).

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 26.0 in 2016 to 19.2 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%) in 1978 to 46.2% (95% CI 44.2% to 48.2%) 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) points splits into 24.5 (95% CI 23.2 to 25.8) from change within groups (89.7% (95% CI 87.8% to 91.7%) of the total), 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.3) from the change in the mix and 1.1 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.7) 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) points combines −3.6 (95% CI −4.6 to −2.5) from change within groups with +2.2 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.8) from the larger share of strong partisans, who rate their own party higher, and +0.9 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.4) from the interaction.

The 1978 base is low for strong partisans, whose own-party rating was 81.5 in 1978, 84.3 in 1980, 84.5 in 1988 and 80.6 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 cohort group, and each tab gives the start and end of its lines. All 12 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) points from 2020, from 19.2 to 20.6. 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) points, an interval that includes zero. Among 2024 face-to-face respondents the change is +6.3 (95% CI 4.3 to 8.2) 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) points higher than web respondents, close to the change of +6.3 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% of the all-interview weight, rated the other party at 17.5 (95% CI 16.3 to 18.6), against 19.2 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. (Note: 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). Among face-to-face respondents all 8 subgroups shown have an interval above zero. Across all 2024 interviews 3 of the 9 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 9 of the 12 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) points in 2012 and 7.3 (95% CI 6.1 to 8.5) in 2024. (Note: 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) points above the party. The difference is among Democrats, who rated John McCain 5.7 (95% CI 3.5 to 7.9) points above the Republican Party; Republicans rated Barack Obama 0.3 (95% CI −2.6 to 3.1) 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) against 25.5 among face-to-face respondents and 11.6 (95% CI 10.4 to 12.9) against 18.0 among web respondents. The share rating the other party's nominee at zero was 5.3% (95% CI 4.1% to 6.7%) in 1968, 57.8% in 2020 and 59.7% (95% CI 57.7% to 61.7%) in 2024, against 33.2% for the party in 2024 (the third view of Table 8).

Between 2020 and 2024 the party average changed by +1.4 points while the nominee average changed by −1.3 (95% CI −2.4 to −0.2) 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) points. (Note: Republicans rated Biden at 20.2 in 2020 and Harris at 16.2 (95% CI 14.9 to 17.5) in 2024. Democrats rated Donald Trump in both years, at 9.6 in 2020 and 10.6 (95% CI 9.5 to 11.8) in 2024.) Democrats rated Donald Trump in both years, a change of +1.1 (95% CI −0.4 to 2.5) 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) in 2016, the lowest in the record, and 75.2 (95% CI 74.3 to 76.2) in 2024, near the 75.8 of 1984 and the 75.7 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 (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.

## 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_high | conf_low | estimate | mode | n | series | year |
| ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | ---: | --- | ---: |
| 48.87 | 47.12 | 48.00 | All interviews | 1,723 | Other party | 1978 |
| 47.72 | 45.43 | 46.57 | All interviews | 1,310 | Other party | 1980 |
| 45.43 | 43.12 | 44.27 | All interviews | 1,181 | Other party | 1982 |
| 46.86 | 44.92 | 45.89 | All interviews | 1,881 | Other party | 1984 |
| 47.25 | 45.25 | 46.25 | All interviews | 1,796 | Other party | 1986 |
| 46.60 | 44.52 | 45.56 | All interviews | 1,717 | Other party | 1988 |
| 47.83 | 45.74 | 46.78 | All interviews | 1,656 | Other party | 1990 |
| 42.74 | 40.95 | 41.84 | All interviews | 2,098 | Other party | 1992 |
| 43.63 | 41.40 | 42.51 | All interviews | 1,567 | Other party | 1994 |
| 42.35 | 39.99 | 41.17 | All interviews | 1,528 | Other party | 1996 |
| 42.34 | 39.59 | 40.96 | All interviews | 1,104 | Other party | 1998 |
| 42.78 | 40.43 | 41.60 | All interviews | 1,525 | Other party | 2000 |
| 41.05 | 38.08 | 39.57 | All interviews | 1,055 | Other party | 2004 |
| 35.88 | 33.50 | 34.69 | All interviews | 1,979 | Other party | 2008 |
| 28.65 | 27.07 | 27.86 | All interviews | 5,079 | Other party | 2012 |
| 26.90 | 25.17 | 26.04 | All interviews | 3,610 | Other party | 2016 |
| 19.91 | 18.58 | 19.24 | All interviews | 7,174 | Other party | 2020 |
| 21.46 | 19.80 | 20.63 | All interviews | 5,080 | Other party | 2024 |
| 71.84 | 70.19 | 71.01 | All interviews | 1,723 | Own party | 1978 |
| 73.46 | 71.48 | 72.47 | All interviews | 1,310 | Own party | 1980 |
| 75.23 | 73.31 | 74.27 | All interviews | 1,181 | Own party | 1982 |
| 75.61 | 74.02 | 74.81 | All interviews | 1,881 | Own party | 1984 |
| 75.27 | 73.66 | 74.46 | All interviews | 1,796 | Own party | 1986 |
| 77.12 | 75.42 | 76.27 | All interviews | 1,717 | Own party | 1988 |
| 72.07 | 70.30 | 71.19 | All interviews | 1,656 | Own party | 1990 |
| 70.75 | 69.20 | 69.98 | All interviews | 2,098 | Own party | 1992 |
| 71.12 | 69.25 | 70.19 | All interviews | 1,567 | Own party | 1994 |
| 72.76 | 70.78 | 71.77 | All interviews | 1,528 | Own party | 1996 |
| 71.63 | 69.22 | 70.42 | All interviews | 1,104 | Own party | 1998 |
| 73.62 | 71.58 | 72.60 | All interviews | 1,525 | Own party | 2000 |
| 74.80 | 72.50 | 73.65 | All interviews | 1,055 | Own party | 2004 |
| 71.73 | 69.69 | 70.71 | All interviews | 1,979 | Own party | 2008 |
| 70.50 | 69.05 | 69.78 | All interviews | 5,079 | Own party | 2012 |
| 67.98 | 66.27 | 67.13 | All interviews | 3,610 | Own party | 2016 |
| 72.17 | 70.89 | 71.53 | All interviews | 7,174 | Own party | 2020 |
| 71.34 | 69.70 | 70.52 | All interviews | 5,080 | Own party | 2024 |
| 35.88 | 33.50 | 34.69 | Face-to-face | 1,979 | Other party | 2008 |
| 34.16 | 31.45 | 32.81 | Face-to-face | 1,798 | Other party | 2012 |
| 32.22 | 29.01 | 30.61 | Face-to-face | 1,029 | Other party | 2016 |
| 27.35 | 23.68 | 25.52 | Face-to-face | 960 | Other party | 2024 |
| 71.73 | 69.69 | 70.71 | Face-to-face | 1,979 | Own party | 2008 |
| 71.06 | 68.62 | 69.84 | Face-to-face | 1,798 | Own party | 2012 |
| 66.53 | 63.35 | 64.94 | Face-to-face | 1,029 | Own party | 2016 |
| 70.32 | 66.94 | 68.63 | Face-to-face | 960 | Own party | 2024 |
| 26.02 | 24.12 | 25.07 | Web | 3,281 | Other party | 2012 |
| 25.34 | 23.32 | 24.33 | Web | 2,581 | Other party | 2016 |
| 19.19 | 16.73 | 17.96 | Web | 1,850 | Other party | 2024 |
| 70.64 | 68.84 | 69.74 | Web | 3,281 | Own party | 2012 |
| 68.96 | 66.94 | 67.95 | Web | 2,581 | Own party | 2016 |
| 72.72 | 70.18 | 71.45 | Web | 1,850 | Own party | 2024 |

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: https://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_high | conf_low | estimate | n | period | waves | window |
| ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | ---: | --- |
| −0.085 | −1.37 | −0.728 | 43,063 | Own party | 18 | Whole record |
| −5.90 | −7.94 | −6.92 | 43,063 | Other party | 18 | Whole record |
| 7.57 | 4.82 | 6.20 | 43,063 | Gap, own minus other | 18 | Whole record |
| 7.14 | −3.98 | 1.58 | 11,264 | Own party, 1978 to 1990 | 7 | Split at 1990 |
| 0.466 | −0.830 | −0.182 | 33,455 | Own party, 1990 to 2024 | 12 | Split at 1990 |
| 1.73 | −3.34 | −0.803 | 11,264 | Other party, 1978 to 1990 | 7 | Split at 1990 |
| −6.78 | −9.66 | −8.22 | 33,455 | Other party, 1990 to 2024 | 12 | Split 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: https://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_high | conf_low | estimate | mode | n | series | year |
| ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | ---: | --- | ---: |
| 6.57 | 4.43 | 5.40 | All interviews | 1,723 | Other party | 1978 |
| 8.37 | 5.62 | 6.87 | All interviews | 1,310 | Other party | 1980 |
| 8.81 | 5.86 | 7.20 | All interviews | 1,181 | Other party | 1982 |
| 9.23 | 6.78 | 7.92 | All interviews | 1,881 | Other party | 1984 |
| 9.13 | 6.64 | 7.80 | All interviews | 1,796 | Other party | 1986 |
| 9.54 | 6.95 | 8.15 | All interviews | 1,717 | Other party | 1988 |
| 8.92 | 6.37 | 7.55 | All interviews | 1,656 | Other party | 1990 |
| 9.57 | 7.20 | 8.31 | All interviews | 2,098 | Other party | 1992 |
| 8.24 | 5.49 | 6.74 | All interviews | 1,567 | Other party | 1994 |
| 10.44 | 7.26 | 8.72 | All interviews | 1,528 | Other party | 1996 |
| 11.50 | 7.75 | 9.46 | All interviews | 1,104 | Other party | 1998 |
| 10.00 | 6.91 | 8.32 | All interviews | 1,525 | Other party | 2000 |
| 14.69 | 10.33 | 12.35 | All interviews | 1,055 | Other party | 2004 |
| 16.82 | 12.90 | 14.75 | All interviews | 1,979 | Other party | 2008 |
| 24.36 | 21.25 | 22.77 | All interviews | 5,079 | Other party | 2012 |
| 23.90 | 20.64 | 22.23 | All interviews | 3,610 | Other party | 2016 |
| 41.57 | 38.51 | 40.03 | All interviews | 7,174 | Other party | 2020 |
| 35.12 | 31.36 | 33.22 | All interviews | 5,080 | Other party | 2024 |
| 16.82 | 12.90 | 14.75 | Face-to-face | 1,979 | Other party | 2008 |
| 19.86 | 15.02 | 17.31 | Face-to-face | 1,798 | Other party | 2012 |
| 20.19 | 14.51 | 17.16 | Face-to-face | 1,029 | Other party | 2016 |
| 26.28 | 18.90 | 22.38 | Face-to-face | 960 | Other party | 2024 |
| 27.89 | 23.91 | 25.85 | Web | 3,281 | Other party | 2012 |
| 26.13 | 22.20 | 24.11 | Web | 2,581 | Other party | 2016 |
| 41.76 | 35.88 | 38.78 | Web | 1,850 | Other party | 2024 |

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: https://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_high | conf_low | estimate | mode | n | series | year |
| ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | ---: | --- | ---: |
| 35.88 | 33.50 | 34.69 | All interviews | 1,979 | All interviews | 2008 |
| 28.65 | 27.07 | 27.86 | All interviews | 5,079 | All interviews | 2012 |
| 26.90 | 25.17 | 26.04 | All interviews | 3,610 | All interviews | 2016 |
| 19.91 | 18.58 | 19.24 | All interviews | 7,174 | All interviews | 2020 |
| 21.46 | 19.80 | 20.63 | All interviews | 5,080 | All interviews | 2024 |
| 35.88 | 33.50 | 34.69 | Face-to-face | 1,979 | Face-to-face | 2008 |
| 34.16 | 31.45 | 32.81 | Face-to-face | 1,798 | Face-to-face | 2012 |
| 32.22 | 29.01 | 30.61 | Face-to-face | 1,029 | Face-to-face | 2016 |
| 27.35 | 23.68 | 25.52 | Face-to-face | 960 | Face-to-face | 2024 |
| 26.02 | 24.12 | 25.07 | Web | 3,281 | Web | 2012 |
| 25.34 | 23.32 | 24.33 | Web | 2,581 | Web | 2016 |
| 19.19 | 16.73 | 17.96 | Web | 1,850 | Web | 2024 |

#### 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_high | conf_low | kind | n | step | value |
| ---: | ---: | --- | ---: | --- | ---: |
| 35.88 | 33.50 | start | 1,979 | 2008 mean | 34.69 |
| −6.93 | −11.35 | delta | 7,059 | Face-to-face fall | −9.18 |
| −1.49 | −2.92 | delta | 7,059 | Web in the mix | −2.20 |
| −1.97 | −3.43 | delta | 7,059 | Panel and paper | −2.70 |
| 21.46 | 19.80 | end | 5,080 | 2024 mean | 20.63 |

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: https://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_high | conf_low | decomposition | kind | n | step | value |
| ---: | ---: | --- | --- | ---: | --- | ---: |
| 48.87 | 47.12 | oth_strength | start | 1,723 | 1978 mean | 48.00 |
| −23.24 | −25.78 | oth_strength | delta | 6,803 | Within groups | −24.54 |
| −1.27 | −2.31 | oth_strength | delta | 6,803 | Group mix | −1.77 |
| −0.461 | −1.65 | oth_strength | delta | 6,803 | Interaction | −1.05 |
| 21.46 | 19.80 | oth_strength | end | 5,080 | 2024 mean | 20.63 |
| 48.87 | 47.12 | oth_strength_ftf | start | 1,723 | 1978 mean | 48.00 |
| −18.01 | −22.46 | oth_strength_ftf | delta | 2,683 | Within groups | −20.25 |
| −0.512 | −1.63 | oth_strength_ftf | delta | 2,683 | Group mix | −1.05 |
| −0.204 | −2.19 | oth_strength_ftf | delta | 2,683 | Interaction | −1.18 |
| 27.35 | 23.68 | oth_strength_ftf | end | 960 | 2024 mean, face-to-face | 25.52 |
| 48.90 | 47.15 | oth_education | start | 1,718 | 1978 mean | 48.03 |
| −25.43 | −28.18 | oth_education | delta | 6,753 | Within groups | −26.83 |
| 0.030 | −0.904 | oth_education | delta | 6,753 | Group mix | −0.442 |
| 0.618 | −0.797 | oth_education | delta | 6,753 | Interaction | −0.072 |
| 21.51 | 19.85 | oth_education | end | 5,035 | 2024 mean | 20.68 |
| 71.84 | 70.19 | own_strength | start | 1,723 | 1978 mean | 71.01 |
| −2.49 | −4.61 | own_strength | delta | 6,803 | Within groups | −3.57 |
| 2.76 | 1.57 | own_strength | delta | 6,803 | Group mix | 2.16 |
| 1.42 | 0.412 | own_strength | delta | 6,803 | Interaction | 0.915 |
| 71.34 | 69.70 | own_strength | end | 5,080 | 2024 mean | 70.52 |

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

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

Mean feeling thermometer rating of the other party within groups of partisans including leaners, by strength of attachment, party, education and birth cohort, 1978 to 2024, 0 to 100

| conf_high | conf_low | estimate | lens | n | series | year |
| ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | ---: | --- | ---: |
| 49.34 | 46.92 | 48.13 | Birth cohort | 1,022 | Born 1942 or earlier | 1978 |
| 48.73 | 45.48 | 47.10 | Birth cohort | 763 | Born 1942 or earlier | 1980 |
| 46.03 | 42.82 | 44.43 | Birth cohort | 651 | Born 1942 or earlier | 1982 |
| 48.18 | 45.24 | 46.71 | Birth cohort | 892 | Born 1942 or earlier | 1984 |
| 47.50 | 44.25 | 45.87 | Birth cohort | 792 | Born 1942 or earlier | 1986 |
| 48.29 | 44.85 | 46.57 | Birth cohort | 730 | Born 1942 or earlier | 1988 |
| 48.45 | 44.79 | 46.62 | Birth cohort | 648 | Born 1942 or earlier | 1990 |
| 43.10 | 40.01 | 41.55 | Birth cohort | 786 | Born 1942 or earlier | 1992 |
| 46.69 | 42.87 | 44.78 | Birth cohort | 563 | Born 1942 or earlier | 1994 |
| 44.09 | 39.98 | 42.03 | Birth cohort | 534 | Born 1942 or earlier | 1996 |
| 43.95 | 38.48 | 41.21 | Birth cohort | 304 | Born 1942 or earlier | 1998 |
| 42.80 | 38.08 | 40.44 | Birth cohort | 401 | Born 1942 or earlier | 2000 |
| 41.22 | 34.56 | 37.89 | Birth cohort | 237 | Born 1942 or earlier | 2004 |
| 40.14 | 34.16 | 37.15 | Birth cohort | 331 | Born 1942 or earlier | 2008 |
| 30.89 | 26.47 | 28.68 | Birth cohort | 615 | Born 1942 or earlier | 2012 |
| 27.31 | 21.36 | 24.34 | Birth cohort | 332 | Born 1942 or earlier | 2016 |
| 22.75 | 17.58 | 20.16 | Birth cohort | 471 | Born 1942 or earlier | 2020 |
| 26.16 | 17.88 | 22.02 | Birth cohort | 243 | Born 1942 or earlier | 2024 |
| 49.05 | 46.52 | 47.78 | Birth cohort | 651 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 1978 |
| 47.66 | 44.27 | 45.97 | Birth cohort | 459 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 1980 |
| 45.62 | 41.88 | 43.75 | Birth cohort | 420 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 1982 |
| 46.58 | 43.51 | 45.05 | Birth cohort | 689 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 1984 |
| 48.28 | 45.26 | 46.77 | Birth cohort | 680 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 1986 |
| 45.33 | 42.11 | 43.72 | Birth cohort | 622 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 1988 |
| 47.46 | 43.96 | 45.71 | Birth cohort | 533 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 1990 |
| 41.47 | 38.53 | 40.00 | Birth cohort | 691 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 1992 |
| 42.37 | 38.53 | 40.45 | Birth cohort | 482 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 1994 |
| 41.68 | 37.55 | 39.61 | Birth cohort | 477 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 1996 |
| 39.59 | 34.86 | 37.22 | Birth cohort | 356 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 1998 |
| 42.06 | 37.99 | 40.03 | Birth cohort | 485 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 2000 |
| 41.74 | 36.03 | 38.89 | Birth cohort | 316 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 2004 |
| 35.02 | 30.51 | 32.77 | Birth cohort | 546 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 2008 |
| 27.45 | 24.73 | 26.09 | Birth cohort | 1,658 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 2012 |
| 24.68 | 21.60 | 23.14 | Birth cohort | 999 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 2016 |
| 17.31 | 14.94 | 16.12 | Birth cohort | 1,966 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 2020 |
| 18.77 | 15.80 | 17.28 | Birth cohort | 1,336 | Born 1943 to 1958 | 2024 |
| 48.89 | 41.75 | 45.32 | Birth cohort | 109 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 1982 |
| 47.86 | 43.03 | 45.44 | Birth cohort | 280 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 1984 |
| 48.43 | 43.98 | 46.21 | Birth cohort | 321 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 1986 |
| 48.74 | 44.54 | 46.64 | Birth cohort | 364 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 1988 |
| 49.99 | 46.40 | 48.20 | Birth cohort | 475 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 1990 |
| 45.85 | 42.62 | 44.23 | Birth cohort | 612 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 1992 |
| 43.86 | 39.82 | 41.84 | Birth cohort | 478 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 1994 |
| 43.72 | 39.71 | 41.72 | Birth cohort | 468 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 1996 |
| 46.05 | 41.11 | 43.58 | Birth cohort | 320 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 1998 |
| 44.83 | 40.88 | 42.86 | Birth cohort | 499 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 2000 |
| 43.96 | 38.83 | 41.39 | Birth cohort | 293 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 2004 |
| 37.08 | 32.69 | 34.89 | Birth cohort | 581 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 2008 |
| 30.25 | 27.24 | 28.74 | Birth cohort | 1,395 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 2012 |
| 28.07 | 24.76 | 26.42 | Birth cohort | 931 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 2016 |
| 20.40 | 17.94 | 19.17 | Birth cohort | 1,838 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 2020 |
| 21.90 | 18.75 | 20.33 | Birth cohort | 1,316 | Born 1959 to 1974 | 2024 |
| 47.94 | 40.27 | 44.11 | Birth cohort | 133 | Born 1975 or later | 2000 |
| 42.83 | 36.33 | 39.58 | Birth cohort | 209 | Born 1975 or later | 2004 |
| 37.36 | 32.70 | 35.03 | Birth cohort | 486 | Born 1975 or later | 2008 |
| 29.77 | 26.72 | 28.25 | Birth cohort | 1,363 | Born 1975 or later | 2012 |
| 29.51 | 26.53 | 28.02 | Birth cohort | 1,260 | Born 1975 or later | 2016 |
| 21.96 | 19.69 | 20.83 | Birth cohort | 2,646 | Born 1975 or later | 2020 |
| 23.36 | 20.80 | 22.08 | Birth cohort | 2,057 | Born 1975 or later | 2024 |
| 48.39 | 44.87 | 46.63 | Education | 317 | College degree or more | 1978 |
| 44.77 | 40.21 | 42.49 | Education | 235 | College degree or more | 1980 |
| 44.21 | 39.76 | 41.98 | Education | 231 | College degree or more | 1982 |
| 44.03 | 39.87 | 41.95 | Education | 339 | College degree or more | 1984 |
| 46.76 | 43.16 | 44.96 | Education | 391 | College degree or more | 1986 |
| 45.29 | 41.22 | 43.26 | Education | 365 | College degree or more | 1988 |
| 45.00 | 40.91 | 42.96 | Education | 358 | College degree or more | 1990 |
| 38.14 | 34.85 | 36.49 | Education | 517 | College degree or more | 1992 |
| 38.01 | 34.25 | 36.13 | Education | 409 | College degree or more | 1994 |
| 40.08 | 36.41 | 38.25 | Education | 441 | College degree or more | 1996 |
| 40.11 | 35.54 | 37.82 | Education | 323 | College degree or more | 1998 |
| 42.04 | 38.46 | 40.25 | Education | 504 | College degree or more | 2000 |
| 37.54 | 32.68 | 35.11 | Education | 339 | College degree or more | 2004 |
| 33.06 | 28.62 | 30.84 | Education | 460 | College degree or more | 2008 |
| 26.61 | 24.13 | 25.37 | Education | 1,621 | College degree or more | 2012 |
| 25.45 | 23.19 | 24.32 | Education | 1,479 | College degree or more | 2016 |
| 18.44 | 16.83 | 17.64 | Education | 3,299 | College degree or more | 2020 |
| 21.29 | 19.01 | 20.15 | Education | 2,353 | College degree or more | 2024 |
| 49.81 | 47.41 | 48.61 | Education | 1,041 | High school or less | 1978 |
| 49.71 | 46.56 | 48.14 | Education | 777 | High school or less | 1980 |
| 47.11 | 43.73 | 45.42 | Education | 649 | High school or less | 1982 |
| 48.27 | 45.56 | 46.92 | Education | 1,038 | High school or less | 1984 |
| 48.46 | 45.48 | 46.97 | Education | 952 | High school or less | 1986 |
| 48.38 | 45.37 | 46.88 | Education | 916 | High school or less | 1988 |
| 49.27 | 46.28 | 47.77 | Education | 920 | High school or less | 1990 |
| 45.58 | 42.96 | 44.27 | Education | 1,036 | High school or less | 1992 |
| 47.78 | 44.40 | 46.09 | Education | 710 | High school or less | 1994 |
| 45.11 | 41.35 | 43.23 | Education | 661 | High school or less | 1996 |
| 44.95 | 40.56 | 42.76 | Education | 454 | High school or less | 1998 |
| 44.56 | 40.34 | 42.45 | Education | 543 | High school or less | 2000 |
| 45.02 | 39.85 | 42.43 | Education | 376 | High school or less | 2004 |
| 38.06 | 34.26 | 36.16 | Education | 890 | High school or less | 2008 |
| 30.55 | 27.64 | 29.10 | Education | 1,707 | High school or less | 2012 |
| 29.76 | 25.94 | 27.85 | Education | 852 | High school or less | 2016 |
| 23.24 | 20.08 | 21.66 | Education | 1,397 | High school or less | 2020 |
| 23.70 | 20.24 | 21.97 | Education | 1,102 | High school or less | 2024 |
| 49.26 | 45.87 | 47.57 | Education | 360 | Some college | 1978 |
| 48.20 | 43.77 | 45.99 | Education | 294 | Some college | 1980 |
| 45.66 | 41.47 | 43.57 | Education | 297 | Some college | 1982 |
| 48.28 | 44.66 | 46.47 | Education | 496 | Some college | 1984 |
| 47.65 | 43.90 | 45.77 | Education | 436 | Some college | 1986 |
| 46.49 | 42.46 | 44.48 | Education | 406 | Some college | 1988 |
| 50.57 | 46.56 | 48.57 | Education | 351 | Some college | 1990 |
| 43.55 | 40.00 | 41.78 | Education | 492 | Some college | 1992 |
| 42.65 | 38.48 | 40.57 | Education | 414 | Some college | 1994 |
| 42.11 | 37.69 | 39.90 | Education | 423 | Some college | 1996 |
| 43.21 | 38.16 | 40.68 | Education | 323 | Some college | 1998 |
| 43.35 | 39.53 | 41.44 | Education | 476 | Some college | 2000 |
| 42.03 | 37.16 | 39.60 | Education | 340 | Some college | 2004 |
| 38.65 | 34.60 | 36.62 | Education | 617 | Some college | 2008 |
| 30.38 | 27.61 | 28.99 | Education | 1,687 | Some college | 2012 |
| 27.31 | 24.55 | 25.93 | Education | 1,254 | Some college | 2016 |
| 19.65 | 17.42 | 18.54 | Education | 2,384 | Some college | 2020 |
| 21.35 | 18.43 | 19.89 | Education | 1,580 | Some college | 2024 |
| 49.49 | 47.18 | 48.34 | Party | 1,088 | Democrats | 1978 |
| 49.50 | 46.52 | 48.01 | Party | 797 | Democrats | 1980 |
| 45.15 | 42.03 | 43.59 | Party | 750 | Democrats | 1982 |
| 46.06 | 43.20 | 44.63 | Party | 1,028 | Democrats | 1984 |
| 47.18 | 44.37 | 45.78 | Party | 1,049 | Democrats | 1986 |
| 47.20 | 44.20 | 45.70 | Party | 921 | Democrats | 1988 |
| 47.01 | 44.10 | 45.56 | Party | 976 | Democrats | 1990 |
| 42.08 | 39.64 | 40.86 | Party | 1,196 | Democrats | 1992 |
| 47.98 | 44.88 | 46.43 | Party | 822 | Democrats | 1994 |
| 43.38 | 40.29 | 41.84 | Party | 879 | Democrats | 1996 |
| 40.72 | 36.97 | 38.84 | Party | 643 | Democrats | 1998 |
| 44.01 | 40.77 | 42.39 | Party | 862 | Democrats | 2000 |
| 40.55 | 36.27 | 38.41 | Party | 579 | Democrats | 2004 |
| 34.56 | 31.48 | 33.02 | Party | 1,336 | Democrats | 2008 |
| 27.74 | 25.59 | 26.66 | Party | 3,093 | Democrats | 2012 |
| 28.05 | 25.64 | 26.84 | Party | 1,903 | Democrats | 2016 |
| 21.52 | 19.64 | 20.58 | Party | 3,780 | Democrats | 2020 |
| 22.21 | 19.95 | 21.08 | Party | 2,631 | Democrats | 2024 |
| 48.72 | 46.09 | 47.41 | Party | 635 | Republicans | 1978 |
| 46.12 | 42.57 | 44.34 | Party | 513 | Republicans | 1980 |
| 47.08 | 43.84 | 45.46 | Party | 431 | Republicans | 1982 |
| 48.68 | 46.15 | 47.41 | Party | 853 | Republicans | 1984 |
| 48.29 | 45.54 | 46.91 | Party | 747 | Republicans | 1986 |
| 46.81 | 43.98 | 45.40 | Party | 796 | Republicans | 1988 |
| 49.98 | 47.09 | 48.54 | Party | 680 | Republicans | 1990 |
| 44.45 | 41.85 | 43.15 | Party | 902 | Republicans | 1992 |
| 39.64 | 36.59 | 38.12 | Party | 745 | Republicans | 1994 |
| 42.09 | 38.44 | 40.27 | Party | 649 | Republicans | 1996 |
| 45.86 | 41.92 | 43.89 | Party | 461 | Republicans | 1998 |
| 42.22 | 38.86 | 40.54 | Party | 663 | Republicans | 2000 |
| 42.98 | 38.96 | 40.97 | Party | 476 | Republicans | 2004 |
| 38.82 | 35.14 | 36.98 | Party | 643 | Republicans | 2008 |
| 30.44 | 28.11 | 29.27 | Party | 1,986 | Republicans | 2012 |
| 26.33 | 23.88 | 25.10 | Party | 1,707 | Republicans | 2016 |
| 18.70 | 16.84 | 17.77 | Party | 3,394 | Republicans | 2020 |
| 21.36 | 18.94 | 20.15 | Party | 2,449 | Republicans | 2024 |
| 51.81 | 49.19 | 50.50 | Strength of attachment | 500 | Leaners | 1978 |
| 51.30 | 47.33 | 49.32 | Strength of attachment | 332 | Leaners | 1980 |
| 49.52 | 45.04 | 47.28 | Strength of attachment | 258 | Leaners | 1982 |
| 50.26 | 46.91 | 48.59 | Strength of attachment | 502 | Leaners | 1984 |
| 51.38 | 47.93 | 49.66 | Strength of attachment | 450 | Leaners | 1986 |
| 51.26 | 47.72 | 49.49 | Strength of attachment | 489 | Leaners | 1988 |
| 51.69 | 48.21 | 49.95 | Strength of attachment | 455 | Leaners | 1990 |
| 45.59 | 42.57 | 44.08 | Strength of attachment | 639 | Leaners | 1992 |
| 48.21 | 44.44 | 46.33 | Strength of attachment | 433 | Leaners | 1994 |
| 46.64 | 42.45 | 44.55 | Strength of attachment | 411 | Leaners | 1996 |
| 46.45 | 41.54 | 44.00 | Strength of attachment | 308 | Leaners | 1998 |
| 47.08 | 43.01 | 45.04 | Strength of attachment | 484 | Leaners | 2000 |
| 47.15 | 42.50 | 44.83 | Strength of attachment | 340 | Leaners | 2004 |
| 42.81 | 38.89 | 40.85 | Strength of attachment | 603 | Leaners | 2008 |
| 34.22 | 31.34 | 32.78 | Strength of attachment | 1,345 | Leaners | 2012 |
| 31.84 | 28.64 | 30.24 | Strength of attachment | 971 | Leaners | 2016 |
| 24.00 | 21.40 | 22.70 | Strength of attachment | 1,828 | Leaners | 2020 |
| 28.29 | 24.92 | 26.60 | Strength of attachment | 1,418 | Leaners | 2024 |
| 43.29 | 39.17 | 41.23 | Strength of attachment | 468 | Strong partisans | 1978 |
| 44.23 | 39.40 | 41.81 | Strength of attachment | 405 | Strong partisans | 1980 |
| 38.70 | 34.44 | 36.57 | Strength of attachment | 410 | Strong partisans | 1982 |
| 40.49 | 36.72 | 38.60 | Strength of attachment | 630 | Strong partisans | 1984 |
| 39.93 | 36.20 | 38.07 | Strength of attachment | 597 | Strong partisans | 1986 |
| 40.28 | 36.72 | 38.50 | Strength of attachment | 619 | Strong partisans | 1988 |
| 43.10 | 38.97 | 41.04 | Strength of attachment | 562 | Strong partisans | 1990 |
| 37.01 | 33.72 | 35.37 | Strength of attachment | 705 | Strong partisans | 1992 |
| 36.58 | 32.66 | 34.62 | Strength of attachment | 549 | Strong partisans | 1994 |
| 35.81 | 31.57 | 33.69 | Strength of attachment | 539 | Strong partisans | 1996 |
| 36.14 | 31.09 | 33.61 | Strength of attachment | 369 | Strong partisans | 1998 |
| 37.70 | 33.80 | 35.75 | Strength of attachment | 568 | Strong partisans | 2000 |
| 32.19 | 27.10 | 29.64 | Strength of attachment | 390 | Strong partisans | 2004 |
| 27.74 | 24.04 | 25.89 | Strength of attachment | 799 | Strong partisans | 2008 |
| 20.63 | 18.36 | 19.50 | Strength of attachment | 2,244 | Strong partisans | 2012 |
| 19.85 | 17.47 | 18.66 | Strength of attachment | 1,594 | Strong partisans | 2016 |
| 13.89 | 12.28 | 13.08 | Strength of attachment | 3,638 | Strong partisans | 2020 |
| 13.99 | 12.07 | 13.03 | Strength of attachment | 2,472 | Strong partisans | 2024 |
| 51.72 | 49.35 | 50.53 | Strength of attachment | 755 | Weak partisans | 1978 |
| 49.92 | 46.78 | 48.35 | Strength of attachment | 573 | Weak partisans | 1980 |
| 50.45 | 47.38 | 48.92 | Strength of attachment | 513 | Weak partisans | 1982 |
| 51.57 | 48.87 | 50.22 | Strength of attachment | 749 | Weak partisans | 1984 |
| 52.16 | 49.29 | 50.73 | Strength of attachment | 749 | Weak partisans | 1986 |
| 51.24 | 47.92 | 49.58 | Strength of attachment | 609 | Weak partisans | 1988 |
| 51.08 | 48.08 | 49.58 | Strength of attachment | 639 | Weak partisans | 1990 |
| 47.39 | 44.66 | 46.02 | Strength of attachment | 754 | Weak partisans | 1992 |
| 48.54 | 45.15 | 46.85 | Strength of attachment | 585 | Weak partisans | 1994 |
| 46.93 | 43.49 | 45.21 | Strength of attachment | 578 | Weak partisans | 1996 |
| 47.17 | 43.15 | 45.16 | Strength of attachment | 427 | Weak partisans | 1998 |
| 46.85 | 42.95 | 44.90 | Strength of attachment | 473 | Weak partisans | 2000 |
| 48.19 | 43.57 | 45.88 | Strength of attachment | 325 | Weak partisans | 2004 |
| 40.55 | 36.38 | 38.47 | Strength of attachment | 577 | Weak partisans | 2008 |
| 35.44 | 32.67 | 34.06 | Strength of attachment | 1,490 | Weak partisans | 2012 |
| 34.94 | 31.78 | 33.36 | Strength of attachment | 1,045 | Weak partisans | 2016 |
| 29.63 | 26.69 | 28.16 | Strength of attachment | 1,708 | Weak partisans | 2020 |
| 29.53 | 26.15 | 27.84 | Strength of attachment | 1,190 | Weak partisans | 2024 |

Views: Strength of attachment (lens = Strength of attachment); Party (lens = Party); Education (lens = Education); Birth cohort (lens = Birth cohort).

Note: A group appears only where its yearly cell has at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of the same size, and only if it has estimates in four or more years.

Note: All interview modes are pooled, so the fall after 2008 includes the mode composition effect shown in the mode figure.

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

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/group_trends.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_high | conf_low | core | estimate | kind_of_group | level_2020 | level_2024 | n | sample | subgroup |
| ---: | ---: | --- | ---: | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | --- |
| 2.45 | 0.328 | yes | 1.39 | All partisans | 19.24 | 20.63 | 5,080 | 2024 all interviews | All partisans |
| 1.97 | −0.968 | yes | 0.501 | Party | 20.58 | 21.08 | 2,631 | 2024 all interviews | Democrats |
| 3.90 | 0.847 | yes | 2.37 | Party | 17.77 | 20.15 | 2,449 | 2024 all interviews | Republicans |
| 1.20 | −1.30 | no | −0.048 | Strength of attachment | 13.08 | 13.03 | 2,472 | 2024 all interviews | Strong partisans |
| 1.92 | −2.56 | no | −0.319 | Strength of attachment | 28.16 | 27.84 | 1,190 | 2024 all interviews | Weak partisans |
| 6.03 | 1.78 | no | 3.90 | Strength of attachment | 22.70 | 26.60 | 1,418 | 2024 all interviews | Leaners |
| 2.04 | −0.584 | no | 0.730 | Interest in the campaign | 14.92 | 15.65 | 2,550 | 2024 all interviews | Very interested in the campaign |
| 3.33 | −0.371 | no | 1.48 | Interest in the campaign | 23.67 | 25.15 | 1,768 | 2024 all interviews | Somewhat interested |
| 5.76 | −1.14 | no | 2.31 | Interest in the campaign | 24.55 | 26.86 | 547 | 2024 all interviews | Not much interested |
| 0.113 | −2.68 | yes | −1.28 | All partisans | 19.24 | 17.96 | 1,850 | 2024 web respondents only | All partisans |
| −0.363 | −4.14 | yes | −2.25 | Party | 20.58 | 18.32 | 966 | 2024 web respondents only | Democrats |
| 1.85 | −2.28 | yes | −0.219 | Party | 17.77 | 17.55 | 884 | 2024 web respondents only | Republicans |
| 0.070 | −3.25 | no | −1.59 | Strength of attachment | 13.08 | 11.49 | 900 | 2024 web respondents only | Strong partisans |
| 0.964 | −4.99 | no | −2.01 | Strength of attachment | 28.16 | 26.14 | 454 | 2024 web respondents only | Weak partisans |
| 3.31 | −2.33 | no | 0.489 | Strength of attachment | 22.70 | 23.19 | 496 | 2024 web respondents only | Leaners |
| 0.300 | −3.28 | no | −1.49 | Interest in the campaign | 14.92 | 13.43 | 886 | 2024 web respondents only | Very interested in the campaign |
| 0.390 | −4.32 | no | −1.96 | Interest in the campaign | 23.67 | 21.70 | 734 | 2024 web respondents only | Somewhat interested |
| 2.13 | −6.33 | no | −2.10 | Interest in the campaign | 24.55 | 22.45 | 230 | 2024 web respondents only | Not much interested |
| 8.22 | 4.32 | yes | 6.27 | All partisans | 19.24 | 25.52 | 960 | 2024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews) | All partisans |
| 8.63 | 3.12 | yes | 5.87 | Party | 20.58 | 26.45 | 522 | 2024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews) | Democrats |
| 9.44 | 3.94 | yes | 6.69 | Party | 17.77 | 24.46 | 438 | 2024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews) | Republicans |
| 5.58 | 0.766 | no | 3.17 | Strength of attachment | 13.08 | 16.26 | 407 | 2024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews) | Strong partisans |
| 9.14 | 1.23 | no | 5.19 | Strength of attachment | 28.16 | 33.34 | 223 | 2024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews) | Weak partisans |
| 10.83 | 3.89 | no | 7.36 | Strength of attachment | 22.70 | 30.06 | 330 | 2024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews) | Leaners |
| 6.65 | 1.92 | no | 4.29 | Interest in the campaign | 14.92 | 19.21 | 492 | 2024 face-to-face respondents only (2020 had no face-to-face interviews) | Very interested in the campaign |
| 9.59 | 2.92 | no | 6.25 | Interest in the campaign | 23.67 | 29.92 | 333 | 2024 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: https://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_high | conf_low | estimate | measure | n | series | year |
| ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | ---: | --- | ---: |
| 55.63 | 52.91 | 54.27 | Mean rating | 1,157 | Other nominee | 1968 |
| 47.78 | 45.35 | 46.57 | Mean rating | 2,203 | Other nominee | 1972 |
| 51.02 | 48.71 | 49.87 | Mean rating | 1,811 | Other nominee | 1976 |
| 45.39 | 42.63 | 44.01 | Mean rating | 1,301 | Other nominee | 1980 |
| 43.89 | 41.62 | 42.75 | Mean rating | 1,903 | Other nominee | 1984 |
| 44.65 | 42.31 | 43.48 | Mean rating | 1,721 | Other nominee | 1988 |
| 40.89 | 38.88 | 39.88 | Mean rating | 2,110 | Other nominee | 1992 |
| 41.60 | 38.90 | 40.25 | Mean rating | 1,524 | Other nominee | 1996 |
| 44.28 | 41.71 | 42.99 | Mean rating | 1,527 | Other nominee | 2000 |
| 36.06 | 32.70 | 34.38 | Mean rating | 1,063 | Other nominee | 2004 |
| 39.36 | 36.80 | 38.08 | Mean rating | 1,990 | Other nominee | 2008 |
| 27.16 | 25.38 | 26.27 | Mean rating | 5,075 | Other nominee | 2012 |
| 16.37 | 14.54 | 15.45 | Mean rating | 3,622 | Other nominee | 2016 |
| 15.36 | 13.95 | 14.65 | Mean rating | 7,026 | Other nominee | 2020 |
| 14.16 | 12.47 | 13.32 | Mean rating | 5,087 | Other nominee | 2024 |
| 48.87 | 47.12 | 48.00 | Mean rating | 1,723 | Other party | 1978 |
| 47.72 | 45.43 | 46.57 | Mean rating | 1,310 | Other party | 1980 |
| 45.43 | 43.12 | 44.27 | Mean rating | 1,181 | Other party | 1982 |
| 46.86 | 44.92 | 45.89 | Mean rating | 1,881 | Other party | 1984 |
| 47.25 | 45.25 | 46.25 | Mean rating | 1,796 | Other party | 1986 |
| 46.60 | 44.52 | 45.56 | Mean rating | 1,717 | Other party | 1988 |
| 47.83 | 45.74 | 46.78 | Mean rating | 1,656 | Other party | 1990 |
| 42.74 | 40.95 | 41.84 | Mean rating | 2,098 | Other party | 1992 |
| 43.63 | 41.40 | 42.51 | Mean rating | 1,567 | Other party | 1994 |
| 42.35 | 39.99 | 41.17 | Mean rating | 1,528 | Other party | 1996 |
| 42.34 | 39.59 | 40.96 | Mean rating | 1,104 | Other party | 1998 |
| 42.78 | 40.43 | 41.60 | Mean rating | 1,525 | Other party | 2000 |
| 41.05 | 38.08 | 39.57 | Mean rating | 1,055 | Other party | 2004 |
| 35.88 | 33.50 | 34.69 | Mean rating | 1,979 | Other party | 2008 |
| 28.65 | 27.07 | 27.86 | Mean rating | 5,079 | Other party | 2012 |
| 26.90 | 25.17 | 26.04 | Mean rating | 3,610 | Other party | 2016 |
| 19.91 | 18.58 | 19.24 | Mean rating | 7,174 | Other party | 2020 |
| 21.46 | 19.80 | 20.63 | Mean rating | 5,080 | Other party | 2024 |
| 76.23 | 73.57 | 74.90 | Mean rating | 1,157 | Own nominee | 1968 |
| 69.66 | 67.43 | 68.54 | Mean rating | 2,203 | Own nominee | 1972 |
| 74.89 | 73.03 | 73.96 | Mean rating | 1,811 | Own nominee | 1976 |
| 70.63 | 68.32 | 69.47 | Mean rating | 1,301 | Own nominee | 1980 |
| 76.68 | 74.91 | 75.80 | Mean rating | 1,903 | Own nominee | 1984 |
| 75.16 | 73.19 | 74.18 | Mean rating | 1,721 | Own nominee | 1988 |
| 70.36 | 68.73 | 69.55 | Mean rating | 2,110 | Own nominee | 1992 |
| 73.07 | 70.84 | 71.96 | Mean rating | 1,524 | Own nominee | 1996 |
| 72.49 | 70.32 | 71.40 | Mean rating | 1,527 | Own nominee | 2000 |
| 75.92 | 73.20 | 74.56 | Mean rating | 1,063 | Own nominee | 2004 |
| 72.79 | 70.50 | 71.64 | Mean rating | 1,990 | Own nominee | 2008 |
| 76.52 | 74.97 | 75.74 | Mean rating | 5,075 | Own nominee | 2012 |
| 65.79 | 63.65 | 64.72 | Mean rating | 3,622 | Own nominee | 2016 |
| 76.48 | 74.95 | 75.72 | Mean rating | 7,026 | Own nominee | 2020 |
| 76.16 | 74.27 | 75.22 | Mean rating | 5,087 | Own nominee | 2024 |
| −0.775 | −4.36 | −2.57 | Nominee minus party | 1,301 | Other nominee minus other party | 1980 |
| −1.64 | −4.63 | −3.14 | Nominee minus party | 1,881 | Other nominee minus other party | 1984 |
| −0.513 | −3.64 | −2.08 | Nominee minus party | 1,717 | Other nominee minus other party | 1988 |
| −0.619 | −3.31 | −1.96 | Nominee minus party | 2,098 | Other nominee minus other party | 1992 |
| 0.878 | −2.71 | −0.918 | Nominee minus party | 1,524 | Other nominee minus other party | 1996 |
| 3.13 | −0.345 | 1.39 | Nominee minus party | 1,525 | Other nominee minus other party | 2000 |
| −2.95 | −7.43 | −5.19 | Nominee minus party | 1,055 | Other nominee minus other party | 2004 |
| 5.14 | 1.64 | 3.39 | Nominee minus party | 1,979 | Other nominee minus other party | 2008 |
| −0.397 | −2.78 | −1.59 | Nominee minus party | 5,075 | Other nominee minus other party | 2012 |
| −9.33 | −11.83 | −10.58 | Nominee minus party | 3,610 | Other nominee minus other party | 2016 |
| −3.62 | −5.56 | −4.59 | Nominee minus party | 7,026 | Other nominee minus other party | 2020 |
| −6.13 | −8.50 | −7.31 | Nominee minus party | 5,080 | Other nominee minus other party | 2024 |
| 6.71 | 4.13 | 5.27 | Share at zero | 1,157 | Other nominee | 1968 |
| 16.44 | 13.46 | 14.89 | Share at zero | 2,203 | Other nominee | 1972 |
| 9.59 | 7.01 | 8.21 | Share at zero | 1,811 | Other nominee | 1976 |
| 14.28 | 10.70 | 12.38 | Share at zero | 1,301 | Other nominee | 1980 |
| 14.51 | 11.49 | 12.93 | Share at zero | 1,903 | Other nominee | 1984 |
| 13.77 | 10.68 | 12.14 | Share at zero | 1,721 | Other nominee | 1988 |
| 13.59 | 10.80 | 12.12 | Share at zero | 2,110 | Other nominee | 1992 |
| 14.06 | 10.38 | 12.10 | Share at zero | 1,524 | Other nominee | 1996 |
| 9.92 | 6.84 | 8.25 | Share at zero | 1,527 | Other nominee | 2000 |
| 23.32 | 18.00 | 20.53 | Share at zero | 1,063 | Other nominee | 2004 |
| 14.21 | 10.59 | 12.28 | Share at zero | 1,990 | Other nominee | 2008 |
| 31.51 | 28.12 | 29.79 | Share at zero | 5,075 | Other nominee | 2012 |
| 50.65 | 46.75 | 48.70 | Share at zero | 3,622 | Other nominee | 2016 |
| 59.31 | 56.19 | 57.76 | Share at zero | 7,026 | Other nominee | 2020 |
| 61.65 | 57.74 | 59.71 | Share at zero | 5,087 | Other nominee | 2024 |
| 6.57 | 4.43 | 5.40 | Share at zero | 1,723 | Other party | 1978 |
| 8.37 | 5.62 | 6.87 | Share at zero | 1,310 | Other party | 1980 |
| 8.81 | 5.86 | 7.20 | Share at zero | 1,181 | Other party | 1982 |
| 9.23 | 6.78 | 7.92 | Share at zero | 1,881 | Other party | 1984 |
| 9.13 | 6.64 | 7.80 | Share at zero | 1,796 | Other party | 1986 |
| 9.54 | 6.95 | 8.15 | Share at zero | 1,717 | Other party | 1988 |
| 8.92 | 6.37 | 7.55 | Share at zero | 1,656 | Other party | 1990 |
| 9.57 | 7.20 | 8.31 | Share at zero | 2,098 | Other party | 1992 |
| 8.24 | 5.49 | 6.74 | Share at zero | 1,567 | Other party | 1994 |
| 10.44 | 7.26 | 8.72 | Share at zero | 1,528 | Other party | 1996 |
| 11.50 | 7.75 | 9.46 | Share at zero | 1,104 | Other party | 1998 |
| 10.00 | 6.91 | 8.32 | Share at zero | 1,525 | Other party | 2000 |
| 14.69 | 10.33 | 12.35 | Share at zero | 1,055 | Other party | 2004 |
| 16.82 | 12.90 | 14.75 | Share at zero | 1,979 | Other party | 2008 |
| 24.36 | 21.25 | 22.77 | Share at zero | 5,079 | Other party | 2012 |
| 23.90 | 20.64 | 22.23 | Share at zero | 3,610 | Other party | 2016 |
| 41.57 | 38.51 | 40.03 | Share at zero | 7,174 | Other party | 2020 |
| 35.12 | 31.36 | 33.22 | Share at zero | 5,080 | Other party | 2024 |

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: https://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.

| Fact id | Value | Unit | Estimand | Population | Period | Interval | n | Weights | Source | Note |
| --- | ---: | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---: | --- | --- | --- |
| biden_rep_2020 | 20.2 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | Republicans, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees | 2020 | 95% CI 19.2 to 21.3 | 3,309 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| coh_new_2000 | 44.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, born 1975 or later | 2000 | 95% CI 40.3 to 47.9 | 133 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| coh_new_2024 | 22.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, born 1975 or later | 2024 | 95% CI 20.8 to 23.4 | 2,057 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| coh_old_1978 | 48.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, born 1942 or earlier | 1978 | 95% CI 46.9 to 49.3 | 1,022 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| coh_old_2024 | 22.0 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, born 1942 or earlier | 2024 | 95% CI 17.9 to 26.2 | 243 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| coth_1968 | 54.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 1968 | 95% CI 52.9 to 55.6 | 1,157 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| coth_2024 | 13.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 2024 | 95% CI 12.5 to 14.2 | 5,087 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| coth_change_2024 | −1.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 2020 to 2024 | 95% CI −2.4 to −0.2 | 12,113 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| coth_ftf_2024 | 16.7 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 2024, face-to-face respondents | 95% CI 14.7 to 18.7 | 966 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| coth_web_2024 | 11.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 2024, web respondents | 95% CI 10.4 to 12.9 | 1,854 | weight_web (VCF0009y) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| cown_1984 | 75.8 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 1984 | 95% CI 74.9 to 76.7 | 1,903 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| cown_2016 | 64.7 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 2016 | 95% CI 63.7 to 65.8 | 3,622 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| cown_2020 | 75.7 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 2020 | 95% CI 75.0 to 76.5 | 7,026 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| cown_2024 | 75.2 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 2024 | 95% CI 74.3 to 76.2 | 5,087 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| czero_1968 | 5.3% | percent of partisans rating the other party's presidential nominee at zero | weighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 1968 | 95% CI 4.1% to 6.7% | 1,157 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| czero_2020 | 57.8% | percent of partisans rating the other party's presidential nominee at zero | weighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 2020 | 95% CI 56.2% to 59.3% | 7,026 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| czero_2024 | 59.7% | percent of partisans rating the other party's presidential nominee at zero | weighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both presidential nominees | 2024 | 95% CI 57.7% to 61.7% | 5,087 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| dem_oth_1978 | 48.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, democrats | 1978 | 95% CI 47.2 to 49.5 | 1,088 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| dem_oth_2024 | 21.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, democrats | 2024 | 95% CI 20.0 to 22.2 | 2,631 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| dem_oth_fall | 27.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | fall 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, democrats | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 25.6 to 28.9 | 3,719 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| design_se_2024 | 0.36 | standard error of the mean, points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | all-interview other-party mean: Taylor-linearised standard error from the variance strata and primary sampling units of the 2024 Time Series file | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, 2024 Time Series file | 2024 |   | 5,080 | pre-election full-sample weight (V240107a) | ANES 2024 Time Series |   |
| edu_col_1978 | 46.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, college degree or more | 1978 | 95% CI 44.9 to 48.4 | 317 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| edu_col_2024 | 20.2 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, college degree or more | 2024 | 95% CI 19.0 to 21.3 | 2,353 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| edu_hs_1978 | 48.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, high school or less | 1978 | 95% CI 47.4 to 49.8 | 1,041 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| edu_hs_2024 | 22.0 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, high school or less | 2024 | 95% CI 20.2 to 23.7 | 1,102 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| fall_all_0812 | 6.8 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2008 to 2012 | 95% CI 5.4 to 8.3 | 7,058 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| fall_all_0824 | 14.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | fall in the all-interview mean (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2008 to 2024 | 95% CI 12.6 to 15.5 | 7,059 | weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| fall_ftf_0812 | 1.9 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2008 to 2012 | 95% CI 0.1 to 3.7 | 3,777 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| fall_ftf_0824 | 9.2 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | fall in the face-to-face mean (95% percentile interval, bootstrap within year) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2008 to 2024 | 95% CI 6.9 to 11.4 | 7,059 | weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| fall_ftf_1224 | 7.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2012 to 2024 | 95% CI 5.0 to 9.6 | 2,758 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| fall_mode_0824 | 4.9 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | gap 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 parties | 2008 to 2024 | 95% CI 3.5 to 6.3 | 7,059 | weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| fall_web_1224 | 7.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2012 to 2024 | 95% CI 5.6 to 8.7 | 5,131 | weight_web (VCF0009y) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| floor_cell | 100 | respondents | minimum number of respondents (and of effective respondents) for a plotted cell | cells of a subgroup by year table | 1978 to 2024 |   |   | none (constant) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| gap_1978 | 23.0 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 | 95% CI 21.8 to 24.2 | 1,723 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| gap_1988 | 30.7 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1988 | 95% CI 29.3 to 32.1 | 1,717 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| gap_2020 | 52.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2020 | 95% CI 51.2 to 53.3 | 7,174 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| gap_2024 | 49.9 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024 | 95% CI 48.6 to 51.2 | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| harris_rep_2024 | 16.2 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | Republicans, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees | 2024 | 95% CI 14.9 to 17.5 | 2,451 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| harris_rep_change | −4.0 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | Republicans, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees | 2020 to 2024 | 95% CI −5.7 to −2.4 | 5,760 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| leaner_oth_1978 | 50.5 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, leaners | 1978 | 95% CI 49.2 to 51.8 | 500 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| leaner_oth_2024 | 26.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, leaners | 2024 | 95% CI 24.9 to 28.3 | 1,418 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| leaner_own_1978 | 62.7 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, leaners | 1978 | 95% CI 61.4 to 64.0 | 500 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| leaner_own_2024 | 59.8 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, leaners | 2024 | 95% CI 58.3 to 61.4 | 1,418 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| mode_other_0824 | 2.7 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | part 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 parties | 2024 | 95% CI 2.0 to 3.4 | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| mode_web_0824 | 2.2 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | part 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 parties | 2024 | 95% CI 1.5 to 2.9 | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| model_se_2024 | 0.42 | standard error of the mean, points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | all-interview other-party mean: standard error from the Kish effective sample size | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, 2024 Time Series file | 2024 |   | 5,080 | pre-election full-sample weight (V240107a) | ANES 2024 Time Series |   |
| n_excl_all | 3 | subgroups | count of subgroup changes whose 95% interval excludes zero | subgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years | 2020 to 2024, all 2024 interviews |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_excl_ftf | 8 | subgroups | count of subgroup changes whose 95% interval excludes zero | subgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years | 2020 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondents |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_excl_web | 1 | subgroups | count of subgroup changes whose 95% interval excludes zero | subgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years | 2020 to 2024, 2024 web respondents |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_ftf_2024 | 960 | respondents | count | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024, fresh face-to-face sample |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_groups | 12 | groups | count of groups | strength, education and birth-cohort groups with at least four yearly estimates | 1978 to 2024 |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_nom_below | 9 | elections | count of elections in which the other party's nominee was rated below the party, with a 95% interval for the difference that excludes zero | presidential elections from 1980 to 2024 with both series | 1980 to 2024 |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_nom_elections | 12 | elections | count of elections | presidential elections from 1980 to 2024 with both series | 1980 to 2024 |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_other_2024 | 2,270 | respondents | count | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024, re-interviewed 2016-2020 panel and paper cases |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_paired | 43,063 | respondents | count of respondents in the sample | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 18 surveys, 1978 to 2024 |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_sub_all | 9 | subgroups | count of subgroup changes reported | subgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years | 2020 to 2024, all 2024 interviews |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_sub_ftf | 8 | subgroups | count of subgroup changes reported | subgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years | 2020 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondents |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_sub_web | 9 | subgroups | count of subgroup changes reported | subgroups with at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 in both years | 2020 to 2024, 2024 web respondents |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_waves | 18 | surveys | count of survey years | ANES time-series studies with both party thermometers | 1978 to 2024 |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| n_web_2024 | 1,850 | respondents | count | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024, fresh web sample without paper cases |   |   | none (count) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| nom_above_2008 | 3.4 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | other 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) | 2008 | 95% CI 1.6 to 5.1 | 3,969 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| nom_above_2008_dem | 5.7 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | other 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) | 2008 | 95% CI 3.5 to 7.9 | 2,682 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| nom_above_2008_rep | 0.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | other 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) | 2008 | 95% CI −2.6 to 3.1 | 1,287 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| nom_below_2012 | 1.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | other 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) | 2012 | 95% CI 0.4 to 2.8 | 10,154 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| nom_below_2024 | 7.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | other 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) | 2024 | 95% CI 6.1 to 8.5 | 10,167 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_1978 | 48.0 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 | 95% CI 47.1 to 48.9 | 1,723 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_1988 | 45.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1988 | 95% CI 44.5 to 46.6 | 1,717 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_1990 | 46.8 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1990 | 95% CI 45.7 to 47.8 | 1,656 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_2008 | 34.7 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2008 | 95% CI 33.5 to 35.9 | 1,979 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_2016 | 26.0 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2016 | 95% CI 25.2 to 26.9 | 3,610 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_2020 | 19.2 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2020 | 95% CI 18.6 to 19.9 | 7,174 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_2024 | 20.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024 | 95% CI 19.8 to 21.5 | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_fall | 27.4 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 26.2 to 28.6 | 6,803 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_ftf_2008 | 34.7 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2008, face-to-face respondents | 95% CI 33.5 to 35.9 | 1,979 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_ftf_2024 | 25.5 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024, face-to-face respondents | 95% CI 23.7 to 27.4 | 960 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_other_2024 | 17.5 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024, respondents in neither mode-weight group | 95% CI 16.3 to 18.6 | 2,270 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_web_2012 | 25.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2012, web respondents | 95% CI 24.1 to 26.0 | 3,281 | weight_web (VCF0009y) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| oth_web_2024 | 18.0 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024, web respondents | 95% CI 16.7 to 19.2 | 1,850 | weight_web (VCF0009y) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| own_1978 | 71.0 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 | 95% CI 70.2 to 71.8 | 1,723 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| own_1988 | 76.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1988 | 95% CI 75.4 to 77.1 | 1,717 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| own_2016 | 67.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2016 | 95% CI 66.3 to 68.0 | 3,610 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| own_2024 | 70.5 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024 | 95% CI 69.7 to 71.3 | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| own_change | −0.5 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI −1.7 to 0.7 | 6,803 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| own_drift_total | −3.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | whole-period slope per decade times 4.6 decades | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 to 2024 (4.6 decades) | 95% CI −6.3 to −0.4 | 43,063 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| own_ftf_change_0824 | −2.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2008 to 2024 | 95% CI −4.1 to −0.1 | 2,939 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| rep_oth_1978 | 47.4 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, republicans | 1978 | 95% CI 46.1 to 48.7 | 635 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| rep_oth_2024 | 20.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, republicans | 2024 | 95% CI 18.9 to 21.4 | 2,449 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| rep_oth_fall | 27.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | fall 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, republicans | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 25.5 to 29.0 | 3,084 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| share_mode_0824 | 34.7% | percent of the all-interview fall | gap 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 parties | 2008 to 2024 | 95% CI 23.8% to 46.6% | 7,059 | weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| slope_gap | +6.2 | points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decade | slope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 17 degrees of freedom | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 to 2024 (18 surveys) | 95% CI 4.8 to 7.6 | 43,063 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| slope_oth | −6.9 | points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decade | slope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 17 degrees of freedom | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 to 2024 (18 surveys) | 95% CI −7.9 to −5.9 | 43,063 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| slope_oth_post | −8.2 | points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decade | slope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 11 degrees of freedom | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1990 to 2024 (12 surveys) | 95% CI −9.7 to −6.8 | 33,455 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| slope_oth_pre | −0.8 | points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decade | slope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 6 degrees of freedom | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 to 1990 (7 surveys) | 95% CI −3.3 to 1.7 | 11,264 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| slope_oth_pre88 | −1.8 | points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decade | slope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 5 degrees of freedom | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 to 1988 (6 surveys) | 95% CI −4.0 to 0.5 | 9,608 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| slope_oth_pre96 | −3.2 | points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decade | slope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 9 degrees of freedom | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 to 1996 (10 surveys) | 95% CI −4.5 to −1.9 | 16,457 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| slope_own | −0.7 | points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decade | slope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 17 degrees of freedom | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 to 2024 (18 surveys) | 95% CI −1.4 to −0.1 | 43,063 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| slope_own_post | −0.2 | points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decade | slope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 11 degrees of freedom | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1990 to 2024 (12 surveys) | 95% CI −0.8 to 0.5 | 33,455 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| slope_own_pre | +1.6 | points on the 0 to 100 thermometer per decade | slope of the rating on year, weighted least squares, errors clustered on survey year, t interval with 6 degrees of freedom | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 to 1990 (7 surveys) | 95% CI −4.0 to 7.1 | 11,264 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_edu_comp_fall | 0.4 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 answer | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 0.0 to 0.9 | 6,753 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_edu_total_fall | 27.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 answer | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 26.2 to 28.6 | 6,753 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_edu_within_fall | 26.8 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 answer | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 25.4 to 28.2 | 6,753 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_ftf_total_fall | 22.5 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 parties | 1978 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondents | 95% CI 20.5 to 24.4 | 2,683 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_ftf_within_fall | 20.2 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 parties | 1978 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondents | 95% CI 18.0 to 22.5 | 2,683 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_oth_comp_fall | 1.8 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 parties | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3 | 6,803 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_oth_inter_fall | 1.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 parties | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 0.5 to 1.7 | 6,803 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_oth_total_fall | 27.4 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 parties | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 26.2 to 28.5 | 6,803 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_oth_within_fall | 24.5 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 parties | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 23.2 to 25.8 | 6,803 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_oth_within_share | 89.7% | percent of the total change | shift-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 parties | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 87.8% to 91.7% | 6,803 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_own_comp | +2.2 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 parties | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 1.6 to 2.8 | 6,803 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_own_inter | +0.9 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 parties | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI 0.4 to 1.4 | 6,803 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_own_total | −0.5 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 parties | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI −1.6 to 0.6 | 6,803 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| ss_own_within | −3.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | shift-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 parties | 1978 to 2024 | 95% CI −4.6 to −2.5 | 6,803 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| strong_oth_1978 | 41.2 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans | 1978 | 95% CI 39.2 to 43.3 | 468 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| strong_oth_2024 | 13.0 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans | 2024 | 95% CI 12.1 to 14.0 | 2,472 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| strong_own_1978 | 81.5 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans | 1978 | 95% CI 80.0 to 83.0 | 468 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| strong_own_1980 | 84.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans | 1980 | 95% CI 82.8 to 85.8 | 405 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| strong_own_1988 | 84.5 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans | 1988 | 95% CI 83.3 to 85.7 | 619 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| strong_own_2024 | 80.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, strong partisans | 2024 | 95% CI 79.6 to 81.6 | 2,472 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| strong_share_1978 | 27.2% | percent of partisans | weighted share who are strong partisans (95% Wilson interval) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 | 95% CI 25.1% to 29.3% | 1,723 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| strong_share_2024 | 46.2% | percent of partisans | weighted share who are strong partisans (95% Wilson interval) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024 | 95% CI 44.2% to 48.2% | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| thaw_all_all | +1.4 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | change in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2020 to 2024, all 2024 interviews | 95% CI 0.3 to 2.4 | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| thaw_ftf_all | +6.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | change in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2020 to 2024, 2024 face-to-face respondents | 95% CI 4.3 to 8.2 | 960 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x) for 2024; weight (VCF0009z) for 2020 | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| thaw_web_all | −1.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | change in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2020 to 2024, 2024 web respondents | 95% CI −2.7 to 0.1 | 1,850 | weight_web (VCF0009y) for 2024; weight (VCF0009z) for 2020 | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| thaw_web_dem | −2.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | change in the weighted mean other-party rating (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, democrats | 2020 to 2024, 2024 web respondents | 95% CI −4.1 to −0.4 | 966 | weight_web (VCF0009y) for 2024; weight (VCF0009z) for 2020 | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| therm_max | 100 | points on the feeling thermometer | highest answer the feeling thermometer allows (a definition of the scale, not an estimate) | answers to the feeling thermometer | 1978 to 2024 |   |   | none (constant) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| therm_min | 0 | points on the feeling thermometer | lowest answer the feeling thermometer allows (a definition of the scale, not an estimate) | answers to the feeling thermometer | 1978 to 2024 |   |   | none (constant) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| trump_dem_2020 | 9.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | Democrats, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees | 2020 | 95% CI 8.7 to 10.5 | 3,717 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| trump_dem_2024 | 10.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | Democrats, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees | 2024 | 95% CI 9.5 to 11.8 | 2,636 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| trump_dem_change | +1.1 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | Democrats, leaners included, with a rating of both nominees | 2020 to 2024 | 95% CI −0.4 to 2.5 | 6,353 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| warm_1978 | 31.2% | percent of partisans rating the other party above the neutral midpoint | weighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 | 95% CI 29.1% to 33.5% | 1,723 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| warm_2024 | 6.5% | percent of partisans rating the other party above the neutral midpoint | weighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024 | 95% CI 5.6% to 7.6% | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| weak_oth_1978 | 50.5 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, weak partisans | 1978 | 95% CI 49.3 to 51.7 | 755 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| weak_oth_2024 | 27.8 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, weak partisans | 2024 | 95% CI 26.1 to 29.5 | 1,190 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| weak_own_1978 | 70.0 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, weak partisans | 1978 | 95% CI 68.8 to 71.2 | 755 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| weak_own_2024 | 64.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | weighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties, weak partisans | 2024 | 95% CI 62.9 to 65.8 | 1,190 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| web_colder_2012 | 7.7 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2012 | 95% CI 6.1 to 9.4 | 5,079 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x); weight_web (VCF0009y) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| web_colder_2016 | 6.3 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2016 | 95% CI 4.4 to 8.2 | 3,610 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x); weight_web (VCF0009y) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| web_colder_2024 | 7.6 | points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer | difference of two weighted means (95% interval, independent samples) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024 | 95% CI 5.3 to 9.8 | 2,810 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x); weight_web (VCF0009y) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| wshare_ftf_2024 | 35.1% | percent of the all-interview weight | share of the summed all-interview weight held by the group | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024, face-to-face respondents |   | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| wshare_other_2024 | 33.7% | percent of the all-interview weight | share of the summed all-interview weight held by the group | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024, panel and paper respondents |   | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| wshare_web_2024 | 31.3% | percent of the all-interview weight | share of the summed all-interview weight held by the group | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024, web respondents |   | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| zero_1978 | 5.4% | percent of partisans rating the other party at zero | weighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 1978 | 95% CI 4.4% to 6.6% | 1,723 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| zero_2020 | 40.0% | percent of partisans rating the other party at zero | weighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2020 | 95% CI 38.5% to 41.6% | 7,174 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| zero_2024 | 33.2% | percent of partisans rating the other party at zero | weighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024 | 95% CI 31.4% to 35.1% | 5,080 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| zero_ftf_2008 | 14.8% | percent of partisans rating the other party at zero | weighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2008, face-to-face respondents | 95% CI 12.9% to 16.8% | 1,979 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| zero_ftf_2024 | 22.4% | percent of partisans rating the other party at zero | weighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024, face-to-face respondents | 95% CI 18.9% to 26.3% | 960 | weight_ftf (VCF0009x) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| zero_web_2024 | 38.8% | percent of partisans rating the other party at zero | weighted share of partisans (95% Wilson interval on the Kish effective sample size) | partisans, leaners included, with a rating of both parties | 2024, web respondents | 95% CI 35.9% to 41.8% | 1,850 | weight_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. https://doi.org/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. https://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. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
5. Iyengar, Shanto; Krupenkin, Masha (2018). The Strengthening of Partisan Affect. Political Psychology 39(S1): 201-218. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/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. https://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. https://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. https://doi.org/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. https://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. https://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. https://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:

| File | Size (bytes) | SHA-256, first 1 MB | SHA-256, last 1 MB |
| --- | ---: | --- | --- |
| data/anes/anes2024_ts/anes_timeseries_2024_spss_20260519.sav | 12,757,094 | 3107c838755f88353d0e3e39b2c3d5f76a2888cf56a179e3acac84ab431335d2 | bb318a018a39b4cf87ccc91b50a5b7c5b41746d28c0226f4a6c176e8c74966d6 |
| data/anes/anes_cdf_clean.parquet | 15,640,720 | b3f0c2d8ae5673b2c40cf6df71318ea3f712cd845c4f1aad0460f28d1b022643 | 04f06dae56b65649291caf6cf77aab9767d9c92d0c2669c6d3655d9063970583 |

Outputs:

| File | SHA-256 |
| --- | --- |
| facts.json | 3f7c8674564306087618216b5acb6cc2c9d38a854ee535af326884644a628dd8 |
| figures/decomposition.json | 1b7f3b5dcdaeb3e4e324c12682473f34066be36c3486f273ba3f75e9278a81ff |
| figures/group_change.json | 9b0ea81126627ee9a597ab9066487a9cd56392950c14a81b8d0b1e3992a29eb2 |
| figures/group_trends.json | f290718d94b7379deb740fd1e894294ea05d86036883573fa2ffed87d99eba31 |
| figures/mode_fall.json | e84642beec68332952e6c43c527dd9d1f765de3a269eea1dd09a37cfe726fd1d |
| figures/party_vs_candidate.json | 491b005ed02cb0b624d8778b1945c65099d825ccb5e2f9492860efc0803ce071 |
| figures/slopes.json | becaa0b12fe59ce774fbc67ae6e66f7636302977a544279266819c8082e083a3 |
| figures/warmth_trend.json | 20bbb5ccd4270b309bda3752dc2352dcf59271746398133164e6ad2a0ad70f1c |
| figures/zero_share.json | 2d1b3b1e63499fe82ce24f7accad8c65f88b3cd245cbccb24e356522febda8be |
| meta.json | fc464011521d56d19f0ce53a02a718ca15177406a2afe0218d6ed1786891219f |
| refs.json | cfada010743aa86084889b1dfc4170b5af26c9b3064df3aefad09274bff6c423 |

## Machine formats

- Report (HTML): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/feelings-toward-the-other-party/report
- Report (Markdown): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/feelings-toward-the-other-party/report.md
- Every estimate (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/facts.json
- Table 1, figure "warmth_trend" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/warmth_trend.json
- Table 2, figure "slopes" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/slopes.json
- Table 3, figure "zero_share" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/zero_share.json
- Table 4, figure "mode_fall" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/mode_fall.json
- Table 5, figure "decomposition" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/decomposition.json
- Table 6, figure "group_trends" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/group_trends.json
- Table 7, figure "group_change" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/group_change.json
- Table 8, figure "party_vs_candidate" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/feelings-toward-the-other-party/figures/party_vs_candidate.json
- Index of every report: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/llms.txt; all reports in one file: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/llms-full.txt