# Party, belief and the political map: report

Introduction 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/party-belief-and-the-political-map. Table n of this report is figure n of the chapter.

## Identification

- Title: Party, belief and the political map
- Chapter: Introduction
- Question: How closely do party, ideological label, issue positions and the geography of the vote line up, and where do they remain distinct?
- Dek: Party identification and liberal-conservative self-placement moved closer together in the ANES, with a correlation of +0.32 in 1972 and +0.72 in 2024.
- Grain: individuals
- Status: draft
- Published: 2026-10-03
- Updated: not revised
- Data sources:
  - ANES Cumulative Data File. ANES Time Series Cumulative Data File, 1972-2024: seven-point party identification and seven-point liberal-conservative scale, respondents who answered both; years: 1948-2024 (33 study years; even years only after 2004; no 2006, 2010 or 2014 study); weights: weight (VCF0009z)
  - General Social Survey. General Social Survey, 1974-2024: partyid and polviews, in the reused party-ideology figure only; years: 1972-2024 (35 study years); weights: weight_use
  - Cooperative Election Study. Cooperative 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 figure; years: 2006-2024 (every year; self-reported turnout is available in the 10 even years); weights: weight (single wave); weight_cumulative (pooled waves)
  - County election returns. County presidential returns, 1868-2024, in the county swing map; 2004-2020, with the CES, in the party gap and place gap figure; years: President 1868-2024 (40 elections); House and Senate 1990-2024; weights: none (full counts)
- Canonical URL: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/party-belief-and-the-political-map
- Report: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/party-belief-and-the-political-map/report
- Markdown: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/party-belief-and-the-political-map/report.md
- BibTeX key: singh2026partybeliefandthepoliticalmap

```bibtex
@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.}
}
```

## 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 Pearson correlation between party identification and liberal-conservative self-placement | ANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placement | 1972 | +0.32 | 95% CI 0.27 to 0.36 | 1,545 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File | anes_r_1972 |
| weighted Pearson correlation between party identification and liberal-conservative self-placement | ANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placement | 2024 | +0.72 | 95% CI 0.70 to 0.74 | 4,716 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File | anes_r_2024 |
| count of respondents who answered both questions | ANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placement | 1972 | 1,545 |   |   | unweighted count of respondents | ANES Cumulative Data File | anes_n_1972 |
| count of respondents who answered both questions | ANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placement | 2024 | 4,716 |   |   | unweighted count of respondents | ANES Cumulative Data File | anes_n_2024 |

## Findings

Among respondents to the American National Election Studies (ANES) who answered both the party-identification and the liberal-conservative questions, the weighted correlation between the two answers rose from +0.32 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.36) in 1972 to +0.72 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.74) in 2024. Those respondents numbered 1,545 in 1972 and 4,716 in 2024. A correlation describes how closely two answers move together; a higher positive value here means that a more Republican identification goes more consistently with a more conservative placement. The intervals describe model-based sampling uncertainty, not every source of survey error. (Note: The estimates come from the ANES Cumulative Data File, weighted with the cumulative-file weight, and are built in Chapter 1.1, Party and ideology (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/party-and-ideology). Each interval uses the Fisher z transformation [1] with the Kish effective sample size [2] and does not incorporate the full survey design.) Table 1 plots the correlation in every survey year, for three surveys.

Table 1. The party-ideology correlation ended higher than it began on all three surveys

The increase is one starting point for this book. It shows that knowing someone's party tells us more about their ideological label than it did in the earlier survey. It does not establish that their views became more extreme, that their positions on different issues became identical to their party's, or that party attachment caused their beliefs to change. Those are separate questions.

*The Public Mind* studies how political identities, beliefs and electoral choices align, and where they remain distinct. The American evidence is its center. Comparisons across countries test whether relationships familiar in the United States hold elsewhere. Election returns and campaign-finance records extend the inquiry to the places where votes are cast and the people who give money to political campaigns.

### Political alignment has several meanings

Party identification is a person's attachment to a political 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 or what the law should allow. These measures often move together, but they describe different things.

Partisan sorting means that political characteristics become more consistently associated with party. It can occur when people change parties while keeping their opinions. It can also occur when their opinions change, or when the composition of the groups changes. A series of surveys interviewing different people can describe the resulting alignment without identifying which process produced it.

Issue polarization concerns the distance between positions on policy. Affective polarization 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. An ideological moderate can be a committed partisan. A county that divides its vote closely can contain reporting units with very different margins.

The book keeps these distinctions visible. Its chapter on economic and cultural dimensions (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/economic-and-cultural-dimensions) finds that the correlation between its economic and cultural indices rose from +0.10 in 1984 to +0.51 in 2024 and is still below one, at +0.69, after correction for measurement error. Its chapter on partisan feeling (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/feelings-toward-the-other-party) finds a long-run fall in ratings of the other party, from 48.0 in 1978 to 20.6 in 2024 on the feeling thermometer, while the average own-party rating ends near its starting level. The recent movement in those ratings also depends on which interview modes are compared.

### The American alignment developed on different schedules

The first volume, *Labels, sorting and partisan feeling*, examines the changing relationship between party identity and ideology, what the labels contain, and partisan feeling. The second, *Coalitions and political differences*, follows the evidence through electoral groups, religion, issues, racial attitudes and institutional confidence.

The timing differs by subject. On abortion, the surveys show a widening party gap over their observed periods, from 3.5 points in 1980 to 52.3 in 2024 in the ANES. The economic-perception chapter (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/perceptions-of-the-economy) describes a gap that reverses at each change of party in the presidency. Partisans are more likely to say that the national economy got better over the past year when their own party holds the presidency, by 34.0 points on average. A persistent difference on an issue and a difference that changes sign with control of government are different patterns, and the chapters describe each without explaining it. (Note: The chapters behind this paragraph are Chapter 4.1, The abortion sort (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-abortion-sort), Chapter 4.7, Sort dates by attitude (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/sort-dates-by-attitude) and Chapter 4.5, Perceptions of the economy (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/perceptions-of-the-economy).)

The composition of political groups matters too. The income chapter finds a change in the comparison between the highest and lowest household-income brackets, from −9.1 points in 2008 to +5.7 in 2024, but the 2024 profile is U-shaped rather than a simple rising ladder. Within education groups the 2024 gap cannot be told apart from zero, although it still rose after 2008. A straight line summarizes a U poorly, so a description of the parties as the parties of the rich or the poor leaves out that structure. (Note: See Chapter 3.5, The income ladder (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-income-ladder).)

The first volume also asks how the alignment changed within birth cohorts. A cohort is a group of people born in the same years. Its average can change as its members change their views, but also as people enter or leave the observed group. The cohort analysis therefore cannot identify individual switching. Its estimates of the contribution of replacement depend on assumptions about cohort rates. (Note: See Chapter 2.1, Cohort change in partisan sorting (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/how-the-sort-happened).)

### Left and right contain different combinations of beliefs

The first part of the book, *Labels and beliefs*, examines the content behind political labels. It distinguishes economic from cultural views and considers the relationship between basic values and ideological placement. The second volume studies religious attendance and affiliation.

Cross-national comparisons are useful because the American combination is only one observed combination. In the book's comparative analysis, left-right placement follows economic attitudes most closely in some countries, the importance of God in others and moral attitudes in others, and in the remaining countries no one attitude leads clearly. Even within post-communist Europe, conservation values, meaning the importance people give to conformity, tradition and security, can relate to the left in one country and the right in another. The post-communist average conceals opposite signs, so it does not support one uniform regional account. (Note: The chapters behind this paragraph are Chapter 1.3, Left and right across countries (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/left-and-right-across-countries), Companion 1.3a, Basic values and left-right (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/basic-values-and-left-right) and Companion 1.3b, The obedience-autonomy disposition (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-obedience-autonomy-disposition).)

These comparisons also test the measures. Questions about the qualities desirable in a child differ from portraits used to measure personal values. Religious attendance differs from the importance of God. When related measures give similar results, that agreement is informative. It does not make the questions interchangeable or prove that they all measure a single disposition.

The comparative chapters written so far therefore qualify the American account. The book asks which relationships recur and which depend on the political label, the survey question or the country. The strength of an association and its direction are empirical questions, even when a theory predicts both.

### Election maps describe distributions of votes

The third volume, *Votes, giving and places*, begins with county election returns and then examines finer reporting units, political donations, demographic characteristics, and local economic and environmental conditions. It ends by relating the geography of voting to individual opinion.

A county's margin describes its result in one election. Its swing describes the change between elections. Counties can swing by similar amounts while remaining far apart in their levels of support. The nationalization chapter measures the spread of those changes. The county-margin chapter measures distance from the national result within an election. The measures answer different questions. (Note: The chapters behind this paragraph are Chapter 6.1, Nationalization of the county vote (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/nationalization-of-the-county-vote) and Chapter 6.2, Distance from the national vote, 1868 to 2024 (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-landslide-county).)

Table 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

Moving below the county line reveals variation that a county average hides. The precinct chapter compares counties that finished near a tie but had different distributions of reporting-unit margins. A close county result does not tell us whether most units were close or whether more one-sided results balanced each other. Nor does a reporting-unit margin reveal the views of every resident; some reporting units are categories of ballots rather than geographic neighborhoods. (Note: See Chapter 6.3, Precincts within counties (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/precincts-within-counties).)

Campaign-finance records supply another comparison. Donors are a selected group, and their scores are inferred from giving rather than chosen as survey labels. The donor-pool chapter follows changes in who is active on a scale that assigns each donor a fixed score. The donor-voter chapter compares county pools drawn from a long record of giving with a particular election. Neither comparison directly measures how an individual donor voted. (Note: The chapters behind this paragraph are Chapter 7.1, The ideology of the donor pool (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool) and Chapter 7.2, Counties where donors and voters diverge (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/counties-where-donors-and-voters-diverge).)

### People and places answer different questions

A relationship across places can differ from a relationship among the people who live in them. Across ZIP codes, for example, more capital-gains filers went with a swing toward the Democrats, while within education groups investors were more Republican than non-investors; with education held fixed, the two results agree in sign. The book places those comparisons alongside one another and identifies the different populations and periods they describe. (Note: See Companion 8.1b, Wages, capital and the ZIP code vote (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/wages-capital-and-the-county-vote).)

The final part ends by returning directly to survey respondents. Chapter 8.3, Party and place (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/party-and-place) compares Democrats and Republicans living in the same kind of county, then compares members of the same party across strongly Democratic and strongly Republican counties. On every issue it examines (Table 3), the party gap is larger than the within-party place gap, averaging 43.1 and 5.6 points. The place differences remain observable, and their size depends on the issue and adjustment.

Table 3. On every issue the gap between parties is larger than the gap between deep-red and deep-blue counties

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

### Reading the evidence

Each chapter defines the comparison its figures make. Survey weights adjust how much each respondent contributes so that the sample matches specified population characteristics, not every unobserved one. Confidence intervals describe uncertainty under an estimator's assumptions and do not by themselves include errors from wording, nonresponse or selection into an online panel.

Election returns count recorded votes. Estimates allocated from precincts to other geographic areas add modeling assumptions. Historical returns also describe the people who could and did vote under the rules of their period. Campaign-finance files describe the contributions covered by their reporting and scoring procedures. These sources cannot be treated as equivalent samples of the public. The [methods reference](https://vishalsingh.org/politics/reference/methods) explains the recurring choices.

The chapters can be read in sequence, through the [map-first path](https://vishalsingh.org/politics/path/start-with-the-map) or by subject. Each provides its data sources, methods and limitations so that it can be read on its own. Planned chapters are identified as questions still to be investigated; their presence in the contents is not evidence of a finding.

### What these data cannot show

The analyses in the current 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. Those limits apply to the interpretation of the patterns, even when the patterns themselves are measured precisely.

## Tables

### Table 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

| 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 |

Views: All interviews (view_id = all); In person only (view_id = inperson); Differences between surveys (view_id = diff).

Note: The in-person view keeps all respondents in the years before the file records interview mode; the methods note of the chapter Party and ideology gives its rules.

Note: In the all-interviews view, rings mark ANES 2000 and GSS 1983, 2002 and 2004. The label is the share of respondents with a party answer who placed themselves on the ideology scale, fewer than in the years around them, so each ringed point rests on fewer respondents.

Note: A year is drawn only when it has at least 150 respondents who answered both questions and passes a second size condition given in the methods note of the chapter Party and ideology. A difference needs both surveys to pass.

Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1972-2024 (weight VCF0009z; weight_ftf for the in-person view); GSS, 1974-2024 (weight_use); CES cumulative file, 2006-2024 (weight); all estimates weighted

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/party-belief-and-the-political-map/figures/staircase.json

### Table 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

No inline rows: the values of Table 2 are in https://vishalsingh.org/politics/data/party-belief-and-the-political-map/swing_map.json.

Note: Full counts of votes: there is no sampling, so the estimates have no confidence interval.

Note: Counties are drawn on 2020 boundaries and matched across elections on FIPS code. A county with no return in one of the two elections, or whose code is absent from the 2020 map, draws as no data. Values are rounded to one decimal place, except that a county within 5 points of the national swing is never rounded to the edge of the palest class, so that class holds the counties counted in the chapter Nationalization of the county vote.

Source: County presidential returns, 1868-2024 (Algara and Amlani for 1868-2020, MIT Election Data and Science Lab for 2024); full counts, not survey estimates; county swings weighted by two-party votes in the later election unless stated

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/party-belief-and-the-political-map/figures/swing_map.json

### Table 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

| 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 |

Note: A deep county is one where the two-party presidential margin is at or beyond the cutoff stated in the chapter Party and place. The share is measured on the side of each issue that Democrats take more often, which the data table names for each question.

Note: The issues were asked in different survey years, listed in the data table, so the averages combine periods. The number in a tooltip is the smallest of the four party by county-type groups behind the row.

Note: Ratios are computed from unrounded gaps, so a ratio can differ in its last digit from the quotient of the gaps as printed.

Note: Intervals are 95% intervals from a bootstrap that resamples whole states; they are model based and ignore the design of the panel.

Source: CES cumulative common content, 2013-2021; county returns for the two-party margin; weighted (weight_cumulative)

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/party-belief-and-the-political-map/figures/gaps_by_issue.json

## All estimates

Every fact in facts.json (34), sorted by id.

| Fact id | Value | Unit | Estimand | Population | Period | Interval | n | Weights | Source | Note |
| --- | ---: | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---: | --- | --- | --- |
| abortion_gap_1980 | 3.5 | percentage points | weighted Democratic share minus weighted Republican share; the ANES four-category abortion question, answer 'always allowed as a matter of personal choice' | Democratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES abortion question | 1980 | 95% CI −1.8 to 8.8 | 1,313 | weight (VCF0009z; equals 1 for every respondent from 1980 to 1990, so those years are unweighted) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| abortion_gap_2024 | 52.3 | percentage points | weighted Democratic share minus weighted Republican share; the ANES four-category abortion question, answer 'always allowed as a matter of personal choice' | Democratic and Republican identifiers (leaners included) who answered the ANES abortion question | 2024 | 95% CI 48.8 to 55.9 | 4,666 | weight (VCF0009z; equals 1 for every respondent from 1980 to 1990, so those years are unweighted) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| anes_n_1972 | 1,545 | respondents | count of respondents who answered both questions | ANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placement | 1972 |   |   | unweighted count of respondents | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| anes_n_2024 | 4,716 | respondents | count of respondents who answered both questions | ANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placement | 2024 |   |   | unweighted count of respondents | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| anes_r_1972 | +0.32 | correlation coefficient, minus 1 to plus 1 | weighted Pearson correlation between party identification and liberal-conservative self-placement | ANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placement | 1972 | 95% CI 0.27 to 0.36 | 1,545 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| anes_r_2024 | +0.72 | correlation coefficient, minus 1 to plus 1 | weighted Pearson correlation between party identification and liberal-conservative self-placement | ANES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept) and a liberal-conservative self-placement | 2024 | 95% CI 0.70 to 0.74 | 4,716 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| band | 5 | percentage points of the two-party margin | definition of 'near the national swing' | half-width of the band around the national swing | 1868-2024 |   |   | none (full counts) | County election returns |   |
| ces_r_2008 | +0.68 | correlation coefficient, minus 1 to plus 1 | weighted Pearson correlation between party identification and liberal-conservative self-placement | CES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept, not sure excluded) and an ideology answer (not sure excluded) | 2008 | 95% CI 0.67 to 0.68 | 29,939 | weight (single wave); weight_cumulative (pooled years) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| ces_r_2016 | +0.59 | correlation coefficient, minus 1 to plus 1 | weighted Pearson correlation between party identification and liberal-conservative self-placement | CES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept, not sure excluded) and an ideology answer (not sure excluded) | 2016 | 95% CI 0.58 to 0.60 | 58,788 | weight (single wave); weight_cumulative (pooled years) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| ces_r_2024 | +0.72 | correlation coefficient, minus 1 to plus 1 | weighted Pearson correlation between party identification and liberal-conservative self-placement | CES respondents with a party identification (leaners kept, not sure excluded) and an ideology answer (not sure excluded) | 2024 | 95% CI 0.71 to 0.73 | 55,835 | weight (single wave); weight_cumulative (pooled years) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| counties_within_1976 | 21.2% | percent of matched counties | share of counties whose swing is within the band of the national swing | counties with returns in both elections of the pair, Alaska excluded | 1972 to 1976 |   |   | none (full counts) | County election returns |   |
| counties_within_latest | 75.6% | percent of matched counties | share of counties whose swing is within the band of the national swing | counties with returns in both elections of the pair, Alaska excluded | 2020 to 2024 |   |   | none (full counts) | County election returns |   |
| econcult_r_1984 | +0.10 | correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1 | weighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval) | adults with at least two of three items answered on each index | 1984 | 95% CI 0.05 to 0.15 | 1,508 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| econcult_r_2024 | +0.51 | correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1 | weighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval) | adults with at least two of three items answered on each index | 2024 | 95% CI 0.48 to 0.55 | 4,387 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| econcult_rc_2024 | +0.69 | correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1 | observed correlation divided by the square root of the product of the two alphas (bootstrap percentile interval) | adults with at least two of three items answered on each index | 2024 | 95% CI 0.65 to 0.74 | 4,387 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| economy_own_party_gap | 34.0 | percentage points | mean of the yearly premiums, each survey counted once; the interval covers sampling error within each survey only | ANES respondents who identify with or lean toward a party and answered the item | 2012 to 2024 (four surveys) | 95% CI 32.5 to 35.4 | 20,874 | weight (VCF0009z) | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| gss_ip_2018 | +0.55 | correlation coefficient, minus 1 to plus 1 | weighted Pearson correlation between party identification and liberal-conservative self-placement | GSS respondents with a party identification (leaners kept, other party excluded) and a liberal-conservative self-placement | 2018, in-person interviews | 95% CI 0.51 to 0.59 | 1,920 | weight_use | General Social Survey |   |
| gss_ip_2024 | +0.56 | correlation coefficient, minus 1 to plus 1 | weighted Pearson correlation between party identification and liberal-conservative self-placement | GSS respondents with a party identification (leaners kept, other party excluded) and a liberal-conservative self-placement | 2024, in-person interviews | 95% CI 0.50 to 0.61 | 1,029 | weight_use | General Social Survey |   |
| income_gap_2008 | −9.1 | percentage points of Democratic two-party vote share | Democratic share in the highest bracket minus that in the lowest; weighted regression on the two brackets, state-clustered standard errors | highest minus lowest bracket, two-party presidential voters who reported household income | 2008 | 95% CI −12.9 to −5.4 | 5,534 | weight_cumulative | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| income_gap_2024 | +5.7 | percentage points of Democratic two-party vote share | Democratic share in the highest bracket minus that in the lowest; weighted regression on the two brackets, state-clustered standard errors | highest minus lowest bracket, two-party presidential voters who reported household income | 2024 | 95% CI 1.1 to 10.3 | 12,281 | weight_cumulative | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| n_pairs | 39 | pairs of consecutive presidential elections | count of pairs | counties with returns, Alaska excluded | 1868-2024 |   |   | none (full counts) | County election returns |   |
| nat_swing_latest | −6.1 | change in the two-party margin, percentage points of the two-party margin | change in the summed two-party margin of matched counties | counties with returns in both elections of the pair, Alaska excluded | 2020 to 2024 |   |   | none (full counts) | County election returns |   |
| off_gss_k | 19 | survey years | count of matched survey years | years in which both the ANES and the GSS asked both questions | 1974-2024 |   |   | count of yearly estimates, each weighted | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| off_gss_sig | 17 | survey years | count of matched years in which the interval of the ANES minus GSS difference lies above zero | matched ANES and GSS survey years | 1974-2024 |   |   | count of yearly estimates, each weighted | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| off_inperson_k | 4 | survey years | count of matched years with mode information in both surveys | years in which both the ANES and the GSS identify in-person interviews | 2008-2024 |   |   | count of yearly estimates, each weighted | ANES Cumulative Data File |   |
| other_party_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 |   |
| other_party_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 |   |
| party_gap_max | 64.1 | points (difference in the share taking the Democratic side, on a 0 to 100 scale) | largest party gap over the issues (border wall) | Democrats and Republicans (three-point party identification, leaners excluded) in counties with a two-party presidential margin of 20 points or more | CES survey years 2013 to 2021, each issue in the years it was asked | 95% CI 62.5 to 65.8 | 60,875 | weight_cumulative (CES cumulative weight; each survey year carries the same total weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| party_gap_mean | 43.1 | points (difference in the share taking the Democratic side, on a 0 to 100 scale) | average over the issues of the party gap: Democratic minus Republican share taking the Democratic side, averaged over deep-red and deep-blue counties | Democrats and Republicans (three-point party identification, leaners excluded) in counties with a two-party presidential margin of 20 points or more | CES survey years 2013 to 2021, each issue in the years it was asked | 95% CI 41.8 to 44.5 | 118,638 | weight_cumulative (CES cumulative weight; each survey year carries the same total weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| party_gap_min | 13.3 | points (difference in the share taking the Democratic side, on a 0 to 100 scale) | smallest party gap over the issues (universal background checks) | Democrats and Republicans (three-point party identification, leaners excluded) in counties with a two-party presidential margin of 20 points or more | CES survey years 2013 to 2021, each issue in the years it was asked | 95% CI 12.0 to 14.9 | 96,237 | weight_cumulative (CES cumulative weight; each survey year carries the same total weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| place_gap_max | 12.0 | points (difference in the share taking the Democratic side, on a 0 to 100 scale) | largest place gap over the issues (abortion) | Democrats and Republicans (three-point party identification, leaners excluded) in counties with a two-party presidential margin of 20 points or more | CES survey years 2013 to 2021, each issue in the years it was asked | 95% CI 9.2 to 14.6 | 113,602 | weight_cumulative (CES cumulative weight; each survey year carries the same total weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| place_gap_mean | 5.6 | points (difference in the share taking the Democratic side, on a 0 to 100 scale) | average over the issues of the place gap: deep-blue minus deep-red county share taking the Democratic side, averaged over Democrats and Republicans | Democrats and Republicans (three-point party identification, leaners excluded) in counties with a two-party presidential margin of 20 points or more | CES survey years 2013 to 2021, each issue in the years it was asked | 95% CI 4.7 to 6.6 | 118,638 | weight_cumulative (CES cumulative weight; each survey year carries the same total weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| place_gap_min | 2.1 | points (difference in the share taking the Democratic side, on a 0 to 100 scale) | smallest place gap over the issues (universal background checks) | Democrats and Republicans (three-point party identification, leaners excluded) in counties with a two-party presidential margin of 20 points or more | CES survey years 2013 to 2021, each issue in the years it was asked | 95% CI 0.9 to 3.1 | 96,237 | weight_cumulative (CES cumulative weight; each survey year carries the same total weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| south_above_1976 | 93.5% | percent of counties in the Census South region | share of counties that swung 5 or more points more toward the Democrats than the nation | counties in the Census South region | 1972 to 1976 |   |   | none (full counts) | County election returns |   |

## Definitions

- Correlation: A 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.
- Party sorting: The 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.

## Methods

Sample: ANES respondents who answered both the seven-point party-identification question and the seven-point liberal-conservative self-placement question, 1,545 in 1972 and 4,716 in 2024. Estimator: the survey-weighted Pearson correlation within a survey year, with the ANES weight (VCF0009z), computed by the code of the chapter Party and ideology. Party identification runs from strong Democrat to strong Republican and keeps leaners on their own points; self-placement runs from extremely liberal to extremely conservative, so a positive correlation means that conservatives sit with Republicans. Respondents who do not place themselves are missing on that item and are left out. Intervals: 95% intervals from Fisher z on the Kish effective sample size; they treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample and do not follow the sampling design. The three figures are reused from the chapters Party and ideology, Nationalization of the county vote and Party and place, with their rows, specifications, source lines, alt text and views. Each of those chapters gives the sample, weights, estimators and suppression rules for its figure in its own methods note, and the numbers a figure prints are read from the same chapter's facts. The county swing map uses full counts of votes and has no sampling interval. The numbers printed in sentences about other chapters are read from those chapters' facts files, and the other statements about chapters describe what those chapters report.

## What these data cannot show

- The analyses in the current 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.
- Those limits apply to the interpretation of the patterns, even when the patterns themselves are measured precisely.

## 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.

## Provenance

- Pipeline version: 1.0.0
- Build script: book3/chapters/party-belief-and-the-political-map/build.py (sha256 c94c720f2663296229f85baafc2d1e265270b83bb4fb53b6da42c93c2b2383ba)
- Built on: 2026-10-03
- Site commit: 16414b2c7257546a7042d0b1734657f208999f60

Inputs:

| File | Size (bytes) | SHA-256, first 1 MB | SHA-256, last 1 MB |
| --- | ---: | --- | --- |
| data/anes/anes_cdf_clean.parquet | 15,640,720 | b3f0c2d8ae5673b2c40cf6df71318ea3f712cd845c4f1aad0460f28d1b022643 | 04f06dae56b65649291caf6cf77aab9767d9c92d0c2669c6d3655d9063970583 |
| data/cces/cces_clean.parquet | 53,454,868 | 9430e88b3196c9ca2250bdda1908d3920e80e276ca0c529c514e2fc2bdd00806 | f61097c727c38fd8d7c8e53fe86935fb626f351a64d99ccb1ae0b56715b2c405 |
| data/gss/gss_all_raw2024.parquet | 35,044,704 | 6f6560d1929e8a100f576317a296ee88f777ca061ab7dbc1471cbdc7b3563538 | 5c3294f206beb53d9a8387fccb1983bf3088818df090bd8ed3f378adadafcf9b |
| data/gss/gss_sub2024.parquet | 4,925,270 | 09c4894730735ec7ae5a057c99d97705866b0b4d485a8b14030435944f909fba | fbbacc5d2586b9f6a774f02031f3686c14fa23a0effee92366bb90a6de8e0ad3 |
| C:/github/politics-book/content/chapters/economic-and-cultural-dimensions/data/facts.json | 45,363 | 2951ffeac47b3a0909e6cf2b156c5681801216a36579844a0e6d0a3aee736495 | 2951ffeac47b3a0909e6cf2b156c5681801216a36579844a0e6d0a3aee736495 |
| C:/github/politics-book/content/chapters/feelings-toward-the-other-party/data/facts.json | 72,189 | 3f7c8674564306087618216b5acb6cc2c9d38a854ee535af326884644a628dd8 | 3f7c8674564306087618216b5acb6cc2c9d38a854ee535af326884644a628dd8 |
| C:/github/politics-book/content/chapters/nationalization-of-the-county-vote/data/facts.json | 42,255 | 6381c8032eba068d911ea297533463f34fb33e5c4a82a0b68bd4e64cf816608e | 6381c8032eba068d911ea297533463f34fb33e5c4a82a0b68bd4e64cf816608e |
| C:/github/politics-book/content/chapters/nationalization-of-the-county-vote/data/figures/swing_map.json | 3,574 | 31dec551a60bcf9ca16d581c0367c4913af50f1ad9886af169cece7c37d945ec | 31dec551a60bcf9ca16d581c0367c4913af50f1ad9886af169cece7c37d945ec |
| C:/github/politics-book/content/chapters/party-and-ideology/data/facts.json | 66,818 | aecf9398163e8ed142b15e8aadd9ab2f4c55c7b80519173dbc3bc373d386679d | aecf9398163e8ed142b15e8aadd9ab2f4c55c7b80519173dbc3bc373d386679d |
| C:/github/politics-book/content/chapters/party-and-ideology/data/figures/staircase.json | 48,476 | b0a6a0a6a08fa981cca661c00999b8a0e2be26f93f407d033a72fee60be1a0fa | b0a6a0a6a08fa981cca661c00999b8a0e2be26f93f407d033a72fee60be1a0fa |
| C:/github/politics-book/content/chapters/party-and-place/data/facts.json | 85,014 | c7aadf423f1ef59d59aaf7ee50ced06ff442b18ceb481acd2f7367548887cd27 | c7aadf423f1ef59d59aaf7ee50ced06ff442b18ceb481acd2f7367548887cd27 |
| C:/github/politics-book/content/chapters/party-and-place/data/figures/gaps_by_issue.json | 8,124 | 100be0bddfa5d2c27e21156b7c6756cbf0049c929c6a46938f1b181c06efe0bb | 100be0bddfa5d2c27e21156b7c6756cbf0049c929c6a46938f1b181c06efe0bb |
| C:/github/politics-book/content/chapters/perceptions-of-the-economy/data/facts.json | 46,036 | 3ddb57bf606953b125471134b2ef26b947ac3f9e064599163a7b50263a886d2c | 3ddb57bf606953b125471134b2ef26b947ac3f9e064599163a7b50263a886d2c |
| C:/github/politics-book/content/chapters/the-abortion-sort/data/facts.json | 54,015 | 62a3b6209ea71c08e6ecf9a8592b9341b23d44b0436da177e44fa33287dfc045 | 62a3b6209ea71c08e6ecf9a8592b9341b23d44b0436da177e44fa33287dfc045 |
| C:/github/politics-book/content/chapters/the-income-ladder/data/facts.json | 58,990 | 94b439d32d17779b39b3c43a576350de23cb090efde900a2f824a170506c9a37 | 94b439d32d17779b39b3c43a576350de23cb090efde900a2f824a170506c9a37 |
| C:/github/politics-book/public/data/nationalization-of-the-county-vote/swing_map.json | 3,608,101 | b48164cb5c8979403b4d5145588e6654d542a6a8e99b57efb6609eb8750ca186 | da68b4077b5e36a7553276eddcee356533073c88c73221fd19381fe387d295c4 |

Outputs:

| File | SHA-256 |
| --- | --- |
| facts.json | 67de93e1fdd9f7c5876dd22d04b4ea01d2e0df6e34bb55ec908b0fac69caa6ef |
| figures/gaps_by_issue.json | c72a9b4b1318027d1c156a53d4c4243cb6d35d686483682909592525f146facc |
| figures/staircase.json | 3de632cda1c2ad83fd98dc9efe91fa93bf407d8f0df1e10b8b8e966f38c72d2a |
| figures/swing_map.json | 24d5affe6b00e9337f81fb5c666fac1a5bbd3653d9b10a3d177bf8566e142faa |
| meta.json | 540cf3d925939f14d88f47dc4f8909dcdaa967c1bee649aacca1cbc35b240035 |
| public/data/party-belief-and-the-political-map/swing_map.json | 508df5251e39fe2340235548a78786d05325902cc2b871e5d3a32e3fb19b90ba |
| refs.json | 479e72f99353914a3875a958a71e8634a63c7f0200140ee7de6b4794c97a7012 |

## Machine formats

- Report (HTML): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/party-belief-and-the-political-map/report
- Report (Markdown): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/party-belief-and-the-political-map/report.md
- Every estimate (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/party-belief-and-the-political-map/facts.json
- Table 1, figure "staircase" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/party-belief-and-the-political-map/figures/staircase.json
- Table 2, figure "swing_map" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/party-belief-and-the-political-map/figures/swing_map.json
- Table 3, figure "gaps_by_issue" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/party-belief-and-the-political-map/figures/gaps_by_issue.json
- Payload of "swing_map" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/data/party-belief-and-the-political-map/swing_map.json
- Index of every report: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/llms.txt; all reports in one file: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/llms-full.txt