Party, belief and the political map

Between 1972 and 2024 the share of Democrats who called themselves conservative and the share of Republicans who called themselves liberal both shrank in the American National Election Studies (ANES), as Chapter 1.1, Party and ideology shows. Party identification and the ideological label people chose for themselves had drawn together, and that movement is where this book begins. A closer fit between two labels leaves open how closely either one fits a person's positions on issues, their feelings about the other party or the place where they live. The Public Mind asks how closely party, ideological label, positions on issues and the geography of the vote line up, and where they stay distinct.

Party and ideological label drew together

The link between the two labels can be put in one number, a correlationCorrelationA number from minus 1 to plus 1 for how closely two measures move together in a straight-line pattern. Zero means no straight-line pattern; a correlation does not say that one measure causes the other., a number from minus one to plus one for how closely two answers move together. Among ANES respondents who answered both the party question and the liberal-conservative question, the weighted correlation was +0.32+0.32 correlation coefficient, minus 1 to plus 1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation between party identification and liberal-conservative self-placementInterval95% CI 0.27 to 0.36n1,545Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placementPeriod1972SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1972 and +0.72+0.72 correlation coefficient, minus 1 to plus 1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation between party identification and liberal-conservative self-placementInterval95% CI 0.70 to 0.74n4,716Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placementPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024. A higher positive value means that a more Republican identification goes more consistently with a more conservative placement.

Figure 1 plots the correlation for three surveys. The General Social Survey (GSS) runs below the ANES in every year both ran, and the Cooperative Election Study (CES), which begins in 2006, starts above both and falls between 2008 and 2016. Each line ends higher than it starts. The rise shows that knowing someone's party tells more about their ideological label than it did. It does not establish that their views became more extreme, that their positions on issues became identical to their party's, or that party attachment caused their beliefs to change.

Figure 1

The party-ideology correlation ended higher than it began on all three surveys

Weighted correlation between party identification (seven-point scale, leaners kept) and liberal-conservative self-placement, respondents who answered both, ANES 1972 to 2024, GSS 1974 to 2024, CES 2006 to 2024, with 95% intervals; the differences view plots the ANES value minus each other survey's value in the same year

All interviewsIn person onlyDifferences between surveys

Show data

Data for The party-ideology correlation ended higher than it began on all three surveys

Survey	Respondents included	Year	Estimate	Interval low	Interval high	Respondents	Effective n
ANES	All interviews	1972	+0.32	+0.27	+0.36	1,545	1,545
ANES	All interviews	1974	+0.33	+0.27	+0.39	1,140	857
ANES	All interviews	1976	+0.38	+0.33	+0.42	1,497	1,441
ANES	All interviews	1978	+0.35	+0.31	+0.39	1,658	1,658
ANES	All interviews	1980	+0.39	+0.33	+0.44	1,004	1,004
ANES	All interviews	1982	+0.41	+0.36	+0.47	891	891
ANES	All interviews	1984	+0.41	+0.37	+0.45	1,546	1,546
ANES	All interviews	1986	+0.36	+0.32	+0.41	1,622	1,622
ANES	All interviews	1988	+0.40	+0.36	+0.45	1,419	1,419
ANES	All interviews	1990	+0.34	+0.29	+0.39	1,315	1,315
ANES	All interviews	1992	+0.44	+0.40	+0.47	1,819	1,812
ANES	All interviews	1994	+0.51	+0.46	+0.55	1,398	1,144
ANES	All interviews	1996	+0.54	+0.50	+0.58	1,326	1,070
ANES	All interviews	1998	+0.44	+0.39	+0.49	1,012	858
ANES	All interviews	2000	+0.47	+0.40	+0.53	669	546
ANES	All interviews	2002	+0.52	+0.47	+0.57	1,223	828
ANES	All interviews	2004	+0.58	+0.53	+0.63	913	766
ANES	All interviews	2008	+0.61	+0.57	+0.65	1,607	1,053
ANES	All interviews	2012	+0.61	+0.59	+0.63	5,288	2,970
ANES	All interviews	2016	+0.70	+0.68	+0.72	3,298	2,332
ANES	All interviews	2020	+0.74	+0.72	+0.75	7,041	3,929
ANES	All interviews	2024	+0.72	+0.70	+0.74	4,716	2,228
GSS	All interviews	1974	+0.17	+0.12	+0.23	1,345	1,122
GSS	All interviews	1975	+0.23	+0.18	+0.29	1,384	1,136
GSS	All interviews	1976	+0.22	+0.16	+0.27	1,393	1,137
GSS	All interviews	1977	+0.22	+0.16	+0.27	1,440	1,160
GSS	All interviews	1978	+0.16	+0.09	+0.22	1,422	885
GSS	All interviews	1980	+0.14	+0.08	+0.21	1,418	941
GSS	All interviews	1982	+0.24	+0.19	+0.30	1,723	1,032
GSS	All interviews	1983	+0.28	+0.20	+0.36	763	482
GSS	All interviews	1984	+0.26	+0.20	+0.32	1,386	889
GSS	All interviews	1985	+0.28	+0.22	+0.34	1,444	919
GSS	All interviews	1986	+0.31	+0.26	+0.36	1,390	1,132
GSS	All interviews	1987	+0.31	+0.25	+0.36	1,666	1,126
GSS	All interviews	1988	+0.30	+0.24	+0.35	1,411	1,139
GSS	All interviews	1989	+0.27	+0.21	+0.32	1,429	1,127
GSS	All interviews	1990	+0.29	+0.23	+0.35	1,301	1,023
GSS	All interviews	1991	+0.26	+0.20	+0.31	1,443	1,105
GSS	All interviews	1993	+0.34	+0.28	+0.38	1,528	1,196
GSS	All interviews	1994	+0.37	+0.34	+0.41	2,806	2,204
GSS	All interviews	1996	+0.38	+0.35	+0.42	2,702	2,168
GSS	All interviews	1998	+0.36	+0.32	+0.40	2,622	2,033
GSS	All interviews	2000	+0.34	+0.30	+0.38	2,593	2,038
GSS	All interviews	2002	+0.37	+0.31	+0.42	1,299	944
GSS	All interviews	2004	+0.43	+0.38	+0.48	1,289	937
GSS	All interviews	2006	+0.47	+0.44	+0.50	4,253	2,952
GSS	All interviews	2008	+0.48	+0.44	+0.52	1,890	1,324
GSS	All interviews	2010	+0.50	+0.46	+0.54	1,914	1,231
GSS	All interviews	2012	+0.47	+0.42	+0.51	1,815	1,153
GSS	All interviews	2014	+0.50	+0.46	+0.53	2,368	1,734
GSS	All interviews	2016	+0.50	+0.46	+0.53	2,668	1,782
GSS	All interviews	2018	+0.56	+0.52	+0.60	2,149	1,285
GSS	All interviews	2021	+0.64	+0.62	+0.67	3,833	2,501
GSS	All interviews	2022	+0.63	+0.59	+0.66	3,303	1,304
GSS	All interviews	2024	+0.63	+0.60	+0.66	3,062	1,557
CES	All interviews	2006	+0.66	+0.65	+0.67	33,755	26,295
CES	All interviews	2007	+0.68	+0.67	+0.70	8,787	4,593
CES	All interviews	2008	+0.68	+0.67	+0.68	29,939	20,888
CES	All interviews	2009	+0.66	+0.64	+0.67	12,229	9,223
CES	All interviews	2010	+0.66	+0.65	+0.66	51,574	20,318
CES	All interviews	2011	+0.60	+0.58	+0.61	18,329	8,715
CES	All interviews	2012	+0.63	+0.62	+0.64	48,972	21,136
CES	All interviews	2013	+0.60	+0.58	+0.61	14,712	7,302
CES	All interviews	2014	+0.62	+0.61	+0.63	49,876	21,741
CES	All interviews	2015	+0.63	+0.61	+0.64	12,807	6,907
CES	All interviews	2016	+0.59	+0.58	+0.60	58,788	30,529
CES	All interviews	2017	+0.63	+0.62	+0.65	16,356	7,800
CES	All interviews	2018	+0.68	+0.68	+0.69	54,063	25,503
CES	All interviews	2019	+0.69	+0.68	+0.70	16,478	9,481
CES	All interviews	2020	+0.69	+0.68	+0.69	55,395	27,431
CES	All interviews	2021	+0.69	+0.68	+0.70	23,450	13,577
CES	All interviews	2022	+0.70	+0.69	+0.70	54,964	24,917
CES	All interviews	2023	+0.65	+0.64	+0.66	22,029	12,323
CES	All interviews	2024	+0.72	+0.71	+0.73	55,835	18,536
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1972	+0.32	+0.27	+0.36	1,545	1,545
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1974	+0.33	+0.27	+0.39	1,140	857
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1976	+0.38	+0.33	+0.42	1,497	1,441
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1978	+0.35	+0.31	+0.39	1,658	1,658
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1980	+0.39	+0.33	+0.44	1,004	1,004
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1982	+0.41	+0.36	+0.47	891	891
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1984	+0.41	+0.37	+0.45	1,546	1,546
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1986	+0.36	+0.32	+0.41	1,622	1,622
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1988	+0.40	+0.36	+0.45	1,419	1,419
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1990	+0.34	+0.29	+0.39	1,315	1,315
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1992	+0.44	+0.40	+0.47	1,819	1,812
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1994	+0.51	+0.46	+0.55	1,398	1,144
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	1996	+0.54	+0.50	+0.58	1,326	1,070
ANES	Left out: telephone or mixed-mode study	1998	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
ANES	Left out: telephone or mixed-mode study	2000	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
ANES	Left out: telephone or mixed-mode study	2002	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
ANES	All respondents (mode not recorded before 2008)	2004	+0.58	+0.53	+0.63	913	766
ANES	Face-to-face respondents	2008	+0.61	+0.57	+0.65	1,607	1,053
ANES	Face-to-face respondents	2012	+0.63	+0.59	+0.67	1,454	794
ANES	Face-to-face respondents	2016	+0.67	+0.62	+0.71	903	598
ANES	Face-to-face respondents	2024	+0.72	+0.68	+0.77	868	442
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1974	+0.17	+0.12	+0.23	1,345	1,122
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1975	+0.23	+0.18	+0.29	1,384	1,136
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1976	+0.22	+0.16	+0.27	1,393	1,137
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1977	+0.22	+0.16	+0.27	1,440	1,160
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1978	+0.16	+0.09	+0.22	1,422	885
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1980	+0.14	+0.08	+0.21	1,418	941
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1982	+0.24	+0.19	+0.30	1,723	1,032
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1983	+0.28	+0.20	+0.36	763	482
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1984	+0.26	+0.20	+0.32	1,386	889
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1985	+0.28	+0.22	+0.34	1,444	919
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1986	+0.31	+0.26	+0.36	1,390	1,132
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1987	+0.31	+0.25	+0.36	1,666	1,126
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1988	+0.30	+0.24	+0.35	1,411	1,139
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1989	+0.27	+0.21	+0.32	1,429	1,127
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1990	+0.29	+0.23	+0.35	1,301	1,023
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1991	+0.26	+0.20	+0.31	1,443	1,105
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1993	+0.34	+0.28	+0.38	1,528	1,196
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1994	+0.37	+0.34	+0.41	2,806	2,204
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1996	+0.38	+0.35	+0.42	2,702	2,168
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	1998	+0.36	+0.32	+0.40	2,622	2,033
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	2000	+0.34	+0.30	+0.38	2,593	2,038
GSS	All respondents (no mode variable before 2004)	2002	+0.37	+0.31	+0.42	1,299	944
GSS	In-person respondents	2004	+0.44	+0.38	+0.50	1,025	761
GSS	In-person respondents	2006	+0.47	+0.44	+0.49	3,972	2,812
GSS	In-person respondents	2008	+0.46	+0.42	+0.51	1,667	1,180
GSS	In-person respondents	2010	+0.49	+0.45	+0.54	1,706	1,100
GSS	In-person respondents	2012	+0.47	+0.42	+0.52	1,579	1,016
GSS	In-person respondents	2014	+0.48	+0.44	+0.52	2,054	1,503
GSS	In-person respondents	2016	+0.51	+0.47	+0.54	2,487	1,651
GSS	In-person respondents	2018	+0.55	+0.51	+0.59	1,920	1,177
GSS	In-person respondents	2022	+0.59	+0.53	+0.64	1,424	566
GSS	In-person respondents	2024	+0.56	+0.50	+0.61	1,029	536
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1974	+0.15	+0.07	+0.24	2,485	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1976	+0.16	+0.09	+0.23	2,890	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1978	+0.19	+0.12	+0.27	3,080	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1980	+0.24	+0.16	+0.33	2,422	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1982	+0.17	+0.09	+0.25	2,614	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1984	+0.15	+0.07	+0.22	2,932	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1986	+0.05	−0.01	+0.12	3,012	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1988	+0.11	+0.04	+0.18	2,830	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1990	+0.05	−0.02	+0.12	2,616	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1994	+0.13	+0.08	+0.19	4,204	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1996	+0.16	+0.10	+0.21	4,028	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	1998	+0.08	+0.01	+0.15	3,634	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	2000	+0.12	+0.05	+0.20	3,262	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	2002	+0.15	+0.07	+0.22	2,522	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	2004	+0.15	+0.08	+0.22	2,202	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	2008	+0.13	+0.07	+0.19	3,497	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	2012	+0.14	+0.09	+0.19	7,103	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	2016	+0.20	+0.16	+0.24	5,966	n/a
ANES minus GSS	All interviews in both surveys	2024	+0.09	+0.06	+0.13	7,778	n/a
ANES minus GSS	ANES face-to-face and GSS in-person respondents	2008	+0.15	+0.09	+0.21	3,274	n/a
ANES minus GSS	ANES face-to-face and GSS in-person respondents	2012	+0.16	+0.10	+0.22	3,033	n/a
ANES minus GSS	ANES face-to-face and GSS in-person respondents	2016	+0.16	+0.10	+0.22	3,390	n/a
ANES minus GSS	ANES face-to-face and GSS in-person respondents	2024	+0.16	+0.09	+0.24	1,897	n/a
ANES minus CES	All interviews in both surveys	2008	−0.06	−0.10	−0.03	31,546	n/a
ANES minus CES	All interviews in both surveys	2012	−0.02	−0.04	+0.01	54,260	n/a
ANES minus CES	All interviews in both surveys	2016	+0.11	+0.09	+0.13	62,086	n/a
ANES minus CES	All interviews in both surveys	2020	+0.05	+0.04	+0.07	62,436	n/a
ANES minus CES	All interviews in both surveys	2024	0.00	−0.02	+0.02	60,551	n/a

The two ANES correlations describe respondents who answered both seven-point questions, 1,5451,545 respondentsEstimandcount of respondents who answered both questionsWeightsunweighted count of respondentsPopulationANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placementPeriod1972SourceANES Cumulative Data File of them in 1972 and 4,7164,716 respondentsEstimandcount of respondents who answered both questionsWeightsunweighted count of respondentsPopulationANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placementPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024. Each estimate is weightedSurvey weightsNumbers that scale each respondent so the sample matches the population on known traits such as age, race, education and region. A weighted average counts a respondent with a large weight for more than one with a small weight. so that the sample matches the population on known traits, and people who decline to place themselves are left out. The intervals describe sampling uncertainty only and treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample.Each interval uses the Fisher z transformation [1] with the Kish effective sample size [2]. In the figure's in-person view, which removes web interviews, the GSS reading for 2024 is level with the one for 2018. The other numbers in this essay come from the chapters named beside them. The report gives every estimate with its interval and sample size.

Alignment has several meanings and several schedules

Party identification is a person's attachment to a party. Ideological self-placement is the label a person chooses for their views. A policy preference is an answer to a more specific question, such as what government should provide. The three often move together and describe different things. Partisan sortingParty sortingThe alignment of party with other traits, such as ideology, religion, race and place, so that people who share a party also tend to share those traits. means that political characteristics become more consistently associated with party. It can occur when people change parties while keeping their opinions, when their opinions change, or when the composition of the groups changes. Repeated surveys of different people describe the resulting alignment without identifying which process produced it.

Issue polarization concerns the distance between positions on policy. Affective polarizationAffective polarizationThe gap between how warmly people feel toward their own party and how coldly they feel toward the other party. It measures feeling, not disagreement on issues. concerns the difference between feelings toward one's own party and the other party; a person can dislike the opposing party while holding some views in common with its supporters. The correlation between the book's economic and cultural conservatism indices rose from +0.10+0.10 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.05 to 0.15n1,508Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1984 to +0.51+0.51 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.48 to 0.55n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024 and is still below one after correction for measurement error. Ratings of the other party fell from 48.048.0 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 47.1 to 48.9n1,723Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod1978SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1978 to 20.620.6 points on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometerEstimandweighted mean rating (95% interval from the Kish effective sample size)Interval95% CI 19.8 to 21.5n5,080Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationpartisans, leaners included, with a rating of both partiesPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024 on the ANES feeling thermometerFeeling thermometerA 0 to 100 rating of a group or person, where 0 is the coldest feeling and 100 the warmest. The American National Election Studies ask respondents to rate parties, candidates and social groups this way., while the average own-party rating ends near its starting level. The recent movement depends on which interview modes are compared.The chapters behind this paragraph are Chapter 1.2, Economic and cultural dimensions and Chapter 2.2, Feelings toward the other party.

The timing differs by subject. On abortion, the gap between the Democratic and Republican shares who say it should always be allowed as a matter of choice widened in the ANES from 3.53.5 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Democratic share minus weighted Republican share; the ANES four-category abortion question, answer 'always allowed as a matter of personal choice'Interval95% CI −1.8 to 8.8n1,313Weightsweight (VCF0009z; equals 1 for every respondent from 1980 to 1990, so those years are unweighted)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES abortion questionPeriod1980SourceANES Cumulative Data File pointsPercentage pointThe unit for the difference between two percentages. A change from one share to another is stated in points, not in percent, so that absolute and relative change are not confused. in 1980 to 52.352.3 percentage pointsEstimandweighted Democratic share minus weighted Republican share; the ANES four-category abortion question, answer 'always allowed as a matter of personal choice'Interval95% CI 48.8 to 55.9n4,666Weightsweight (VCF0009z; equals 1 for every respondent from 1980 to 1990, so those years are unweighted)PopulationDemocratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES abortion questionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024. On the economy, partisans are more likely to say it got better over the past year when their own party holds the presidency, and the gap reverses at each change of party there. A persistent difference and a difference that changes sign with control of government are different patterns.The chapters behind this paragraph are Chapter 4.1, The abortion sort, Chapter 4.7, Sort dates by attitude and Chapter 4.5, Perceptions of the economy.

Left and right hold different combinations of beliefs

The American pairing of label and belief is one observed combination among many. Across countries, left-right placement follows economic attitudes most closely in some, the importance of God in others and moral attitudes in others, and in the remaining countries no one attitude leads clearly. Within post-communist Europe, conservation values, the importance people give to conformity, tradition and security, can relate to the left in one country and the right in another, so the regional average conceals opposite signs. A label can line up more closely with party in one country and still carry different beliefs from the same label in another, and the first volume reads the American labels against that variation.The chapters behind this paragraph are Chapter 1.3, Left and right across countries and Companion 1.3a, Basic values and left-right.

Election maps describe distributions of votes

The third volume begins with county election returns. A county's marginCounty two-party marginThe Democratic vote minus the Republican vote, divided by the sum of the two, so a positive value is a Democratic lead. Votes for other candidates are left out. describes its result in one election, and its swingSwingThe change in a place's two-party margin between two elections. In this book a positive swing is a move toward the Democrats. describes the change between elections. Counties can swing by similar amounts while remaining far apart in their levels of support. Chapter 6.1, Nationalization of the county vote measures the spread of those changes around the national swingNational swingThe change between two elections in the Democratic minus Republican margin for the country as a whole. A county's own swing is compared with it to show whether the county moved with the nation or against it., and Chapter 6.2, Distance from the national vote, 1868 to 2024 measures distance from the national result within an election. Figure 2 shows the first of them for every pair of presidential elections from 1868 to 2024.

Figure 2

The share of counties within 5 points of the national swing rose from 21.2% in 1972 to 1976 to 75.6% in 2020 to 2024

Change in each county's Democratic minus Republican margin, minus the national change, percentage points, for each of 39 pairs of presidential elections

+−Reset

Loading county values

County swing minus national swing (points)

−40+40−30−15−5+5+15+30

More RepublicanMore Democratic

Values outside −40 to +40 take the end colors.

No data (3,143 counties)

Select a class to show only those places.

Find a county

Hover or tap a county for its value, or search by name. Zoom with the buttons on the map, then drag to move it.

• Alaska draws as no data. Its election returns are reported by election district, and the district codes cannot be matched to boroughs and census areas.

Below the county line, Chapter 6.3, Precincts within counties compares counties that finished near a tie but had different distributions of reporting-unit margins. A close county result does not say whether most units were close or whether one-sided results balanced each other. Donors are a selected group, and their scores are inferred from giving rather than chosen as survey labels. Chapter 7.1, The ideology of the donor pool follows who is active on a scale that gives each donor a fixed score, and Chapter 7.2, Counties where donors and voters diverge compares county donor pools with one election. Neither measures how an individual donor voted.

People and places answer different questions

A relationship across places can differ from a relationship among the people who live in them, so the book ends its map chapters by returning to survey respondents. Chapter 8.3, Party and place compares Democrats and Republicans living in the same kind of county, then members of the same party across strongly Democratic and strongly Republican counties. On every issue it examines, the party gap is larger than the within-party place gap, averaging 43.143.1 points (difference in the share taking the Democratic side, on a 0 to 100 scale)Estimandaverage over the issues of the party gap: Democratic minus Republican share taking the Democratic side, averaged over deep-red and deep-blue countiesInterval95% CI 41.8 to 44.5n118,638Weightsweight_cumulative (CES cumulative weight; each survey year carries the same total weight)PopulationDemocrats and Republicans (three-point party identification, leaners excluded) in counties with a two-party presidential margin of 20 points or morePeriodCES survey years 2013 to 2021, each issue in the years it was askedSourceCooperative Election Study and 5.65.6 points (difference in the share taking the Democratic side, on a 0 to 100 scale)Estimandaverage over the issues of the place gap: deep-blue minus deep-red county share taking the Democratic side, averaged over Democrats and RepublicansInterval95% CI 4.7 to 6.6n118,638Weightsweight_cumulative (CES cumulative weight; each survey year carries the same total weight)PopulationDemocrats and Republicans (three-point party identification, leaners excluded) in counties with a two-party presidential margin of 20 points or morePeriodCES survey years 2013 to 2021, each issue in the years it was askedSourceCooperative Election Study points. The place differences remain observable, and their size depends on the issue and the adjustment.

Figure 3

On every issue the gap between parties is larger than the gap between deep-red and deep-blue counties

Gap in the share taking the Democratic side, in points, by issue; Democrats and Republicans in deep counties; CES survey years 2013 to 2021

• Place gap
• Party gap

Show data

Data for On every issue the gap between parties is larger than the gap between deep-red and deep-blue counties

Issue	Democratic side of the question	Survey years	Party gap	Party gap, low	Party gap, high	Place gap	Place gap, low	Place gap, high	Ratio	Smallest group, n
Assault weapons ban	Support an assault weapons ban	2013 to 2021	41.9	40.3	43.8	7.5	6.1	9.0	5.6	16,440
Background checks	Support universal background checks for gun buyers	2013 to 2021, not 2020	13.3	12.0	14.9	2.1	0.9	3.1	6.5	13,375
Concealed carry	Oppose easier concealed carry	2013 to 2021	38.8	37.1	40.7	4.8	3.4	6.4	8.1	16,452
Border security	Oppose more spending on border security	2013 to 2021, not 2018	40.2	38.6	42.0	5.3	3.7	6.7	7.6	13,428
Path to legal status	Support a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants	2013 to 2021, not 2018	38.7	36.9	40.3	4.1	2.6	5.8	9.6	13,422
Border wall	Oppose spending on a border wall	2017 to 2021, not 2019	64.1	62.5	65.8	4.1	2.9	5.3	15.5	8,257
Gay marriage	Support legal gay marriage	2013 to 2016	36.4	33.6	39.3	10.2	6.6	13.7	3.6	7,161
Repeal the ACA	Oppose repealing the Affordable Care Act	2013 to 2021	57.2	55.8	58.8	4.2	2.8	5.4	13.7	16,459
EPA regulates CO2	Support letting the EPA regulate carbon dioxide	2014 to 2021	44.4	42.3	46.5	5.2	3.5	6.9	8.6	15,459
Abortion legal	Support always allowing abortion as a matter of choice	2014 to 2021	46.5	44.7	48.7	12.0	9.2	14.6	3.9	15,818
Medicare for All	Support Medicare for All	2018 to 2021	51.3	49.3	53.6	4.2	1.7	6.4	12.1	8,385
Cut immigration	Oppose cutting legal immigration by half	2018 to 2020	44.2	42.6	45.7	4.1	2.5	5.9	10.8	7,157

That comparison does not establish what moving to another county would do to someone's views. People select where they live, party attachments go with other characteristics, and the measured county margin captures only one aspect of local context. Separating influence from selection needs different evidence.

What to ask of each comparison

The chapters that follow each answer the book's question for one comparison, and their answers differ. Reading them together means asking of each result how closely two characteristics line up, when that alignment changed and whether it moved in one direction, which population is counted, and whether the unit is a person, a place or a country. The planned conclusion sets the answers side by side.

What these chapters cannot show

The chapters describe relationships more often than they identify causes. They cannot by themselves determine whether party leaders changed voters' views, whether voters selected leaders who matched them, or whether both responded to other changes. Survey weights match the sample to specified population characteristics, and confidence intervalsConfidence intervalA range around an estimate that would contain the true value in 95% of repeated samples if the sampling model held. The book reports 95% intervals unless it says otherwise. leave out errors from wording, nonresponse or selection into an online panel. Election returns count recorded votes under the rules of their period, and the sources cannot be treated as equivalent samples of the public. The chapters this essay summarizes are drafts, and a planned chapter is a question still to be investigated.

---

Go deeper

• The report: every estimate with its interval and sample size.
• Tables: every figure of the report as a table.

Data sources

• ANES Cumulative Data FileANES Time Series Cumulative Data File, 1972-2024: seven-point party identification and seven-point liberal-conservative scale, respondents who answered bothYears: 1948-2024 (33 study years; even years only after 2004; no 2006, 2010 or 2014 study) · Weights: weight (VCF0009z) · License: Free download after accepting the ANES terms of use; cite the release.
• General Social SurveyGeneral Social Survey, 1974-2024: partyid and polviews, in the reused party-ideology figure onlyYears: 1972-2024 (35 study years) · Weights: weight_use · License: See the provider's terms of use.
• Cooperative Election StudyCooperative Election Study: the cumulative file, 2006-2024, in the party-ideology figure; the cumulative common content, 2013-2021, in the party gap and place gap figureYears: 2006-2024 (every year; self-reported turnout is available in the 10 even years) · Weights: weight (single wave); weight_cumulative (pooled waves) · License: See the provider's terms of use.
• County election returnsCounty presidential returns, 1868-2024, in the county swing map; 2004-2020, with the CES, in the party gap and place gap figureYears: President 1868-2024 (40 elections); House and Senate 1990-2024 · Weights: none (full counts) · License: The Heideman file is CC BY 4.0 (doi:10.5281/zenodo.22976553), but the state records behind it keep their own terms, and the sites of Florida, Indiana, Colorado and Wisconsin restrict reuse.

All data sources

References

1. Fisher, Ronald A. (1921). On the Probable Error of a Coefficient of Correlation Deduced from a Small Sample. Metron 1(4): 3-32.
2. Kish, Leslie (1965). Survey Sampling. John Wiley and Sons.

How to cite

@misc{singh2026partybeliefandthepoliticalmap,
  author = {Singh, Vishal},
  title = {Party, belief and the political map},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://vishalsingh.org/politics/party-belief-and-the-political-map},
  note = {In The Public Mind. Published 3 October 2026.}
}