DOCSLIB.ORG

Voter News Service General Election Exit Polls, 2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Voter News Service General Election Exit Polls, 2002 ICPSR 3809 Voter News Service General Election Exit Poll, 2002 Voter News Service First ICPSR Version October 2003 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 www.icpsr.umich.edu Terms of Use Bibliographic Citation: Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: Voter News Service. VOTER NEWS SERVICE GENERAL ELECTION EXIT POLL, 2002 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. New York, NY: Voter News Service [producer], 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2003. Request for Information on To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of Use of ICPSR Resources: archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Visit the ICPSR Web site for more information on submitting citations. Data Disclaimer: The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Responsible Use In preparing data for public release, ICPSR performs a number of Statement: procedures to ensure that the identity of research subjects cannot be disclosed. Any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment violates the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data obtained from the ICPSR archive and/or any of its special topic archives agree: • To use these datasets solely for statistical analysis and reporting of aggregated information, and not for investigation of specific individuals or organizations, except when identification is authorized in writing by ICPSR • To make no use of the identity of any person or establishment discovered inadvertently, and to advise ICPSR of any such discovery • To produce no links among ICPSR datasets or among ICPSR data and other datasets that could identify individuals or organizations Redistribution: ICPSR data may not be redistributed or sold to other individuals, institutions, or organizations without the written agreement of ICPSR. Data Collection Description Principal Investigator(s): Voter News Service Title: Voter News Service General Election Exit Poll, 2002 ICPSR Study Number: 3809 Summary: These data were collected through interviews conducted with voters in 50 states and the District of Columbia as they left their polling places on election day, November 5, 2002, or, in the case of Oregon, where all votes were cast by mail, in phone surveys conducted immediately before the election. In this national sample, respondents were asked a series of questions about their electoral choices, the issues surrounding the election, whether they had trouble casting their vote, and their actual vote choice in the 2000 presidential election. Respondents were also asked about their approval or disapproval of the way George W. Bush was handling his job, and if they would vote for his re-election in 2004. In addition, respondents were queried on military action against Iraq, and their concerns regarding the economy and terrorism. Background information on respondents includes age, race, gender, Hispanic descent, age of children in household, marital status, political party, political orientation, employment status, education, religion, and family income. Universe: Voters casting a ballot in the 2000 United States general election. Sample: The samples were selected in two stages. First, a probability sample of voting precincts within each state was selected that represented the different geographic areas across the state and the vote by party. Second, within each precinct, voters were sampled systematically throughout the voting day at a rate that gave all voters in a precinct the same chance of being interviewed. Date of Collection: Oregon: October 27, 2002-November 3, 2002, all other states: November 5, 2002 Data Collection Notes: (1) A weight variable, with three implied decimal places, should be applied in all analyses. Further information on weighting may be found within the methodology section of the codebook. (2) Although this dataset has been carefully examined at the national level and has been judged by an independent academic panel to be comparable in quality to previous exit polls, the user should be more careful than usual in making conclusions about characteristics based on a small number of precincts or in subsamples at the regional level because of the possible impact of the coverage problem, which is addressed in greater detail in the codebook. (3) The codebook is provided by ICPSR as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site. Data Source: personal interviews and telephone interviews Extent of Collection: 1 data file + machine-readable documentation (PDF) Extent of Processing: DDEF.ICPSR/ REFORM.DOC Data Format: Logical Record Length with SAS and SPSS data definition statements File Specifications Part Part Name File Structure Case Variable LRECL Records No. Count Count Per Case 1 Data file rectangular 17,872 73 90 1 VOTER NEWS SERVICE 2002 EXIT POLL INTRODUCTION Interviews included in this data set of the 2002 Voter News Service national exit poll were conducted with voters leaving the polling places on November 5, 2002 (or, in the case of Oregon, where all votes are cast by mail, in phone surveys conducted immediately before the election). This data set was compiled after election day (see below for details). It has been closely examined at the national level and an independent academic panel has judged the data to be comparable in quality to previous exit polls. The review panel consisted of Michael Delli Carpini, Dean of the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania; Prof. Michael Hagen, Rutgers University; Prof. Peter Miller, Associate Dean of the School of Communication at Northwestern University and editor of Public Opinion Quarterly; and Prof. Colm O’Muircheartaigh, Vice President for Statistics and Methodology at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. The committee reported to the former members of VNS that "the 2002 data is of comparable utility and quality to past VNS exit polls, and we recommend that it be released for public use." VNS was unable to provide exit poll results on election day due to systemic failure of a new computer system designed by an outside contractor. This data set has been provided to the ICPSR by the Associated Press, CBS News, CNN and NBC News, former members of Voter News Service. NOTES ON METHODOLOGY: 2002 COMPARED WITH EARLIER POLLS The 2002 election data set differs from earlier exit polls in several ways. While the 2002 data were not processed on election night because of problems with the intake capability of the computer system, there were no reports of problems with the questionnaire itself, the sample of precincts, the number of refusals, or any other part of the actual process of selecting voters and having them answer the exit poll questionnaire. After the 2002 election, most interviewers shipped the completed questionnaires to VNS, which is part of their pre-election training. Some precincts were unobtainable because interviewers did not conduct interviews on election day or did not return their completed questionnaires. Ultimately, 200 interviewers out of the original 250 precincts did comply, and VNS had each questionnaire keypunched and re-keypunched to catch any entry errors. The result is the data set that is attached and available to researchers. In prior exit polls, missing precincts have been as high as 10% of the original sample in 1994, but in more recent exit polls, precinct non-coverage has ranged from 0% to 4%. Surveys rarely have full coverage of the targeted population. While the lack of precinct coverage in this exit poll is substantial – 50 of 250 precincts' data were not available -- the data would still be usable if the drop-off is from random effects and is not systematic. Comparing the distribution of the 200 precincts with the full sample across a variety of precinct-level characteristics (e.g., percentage black and Hispanic, urbanity classification, and past party vote), the difference for each of these characteristics was small. To be safe, a weighting adjustment by these groups was made at the national level, since it could only improve the estimates. Other than this adjustment and some small improvements, the weighting and processing procedures were similar to previous years: there is a non-response adjustment for age, race and sex, and the survey is forced to the final outcome in each region within meaningful strata. The 2002 exit poll has more than 17,000 respondents, compared with 10,000 from midterm elections in 1998 and 1994. The number of cases is higher because in past elections, VNS sub- sampled the questionnaires in each precinct in order to process them on election
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Presidential Elections 1
    CAWP Fact Sheet Center for the American Woman and Politics • Eagleton Institute of Politics • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 191 Ryders Lane • New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8557 • (848) 932-9384 • Fax (732) 932-6778 • www.cawp.rutgers.edu THE GENDER GAP Voting Choices In Presidential Elections 1 A gender gap in voting refers to a difference between the percentage of women and the percentage of men voting for a given candidate, generally the winning candidate. Even when women and men favor the same candidate, they may do so by different margins, resulting in a gender gap. In every presidential election since 1980, a gender gap has been apparent, with a greater proportion of women than men preferring the Democrat in each case. A sizable 11 percentage-point gender gap was evident in the 2016 presidential election, with 42 percent of women and 53 percent of men voting for Trump. The 2016 gender gap was larger than in any year except 1996, when the gender gap for President Bill Clinton in his race with Senator Robert Dole was also 11 percentage points. Other presidential elections since 1980 have seen gender gaps ranging from four to 10 percentage points. In every presidential election since 1996, a majority of women have preferred the Democratic candidate. Moreover, women and men have favored different candidates in presidential elections since 2000, with the exception of 2008 when men were almost equally divided in their preferences for Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. In 2016, a majority of women favored the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, while a majority of men voted for the Republican victor, Donald Trump.
    [Show full text]
  • Voter News Service General Election Exit Polls, 2000 Codebook for All
    ICPSR Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Voter News Service General Election Exit Polls, 2000 Codebook for All Parts Voter News Service ICPSR 3527 Voter News Service General Election Exit Polls, 2000 (ICPSR 3527) Principal Investigator Voter News Service First ICPSR Version November 2002 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: Voter News Service. VOTER NEWS SERVICE GENERAL ELECTION EXIT POLLS, 2000 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. New York, NY: Voter News Service [producer], 2000. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter- university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2002. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON USE OF ICPSR RESOURCES To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Please indicate in a cover letter which data were used. DATA DISCLAIMER The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. DATA COLLECTION DESCRIPTION Voter News Service Voter News Service General Election Exit Polls, 2000 (ICPSR 3527) SUMMARY: These data were collected through interviews conducted with voters in 50 states and the District of Columbia, as they left their polling places on election day, November 7, 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • The Exit Poll Phenomenon
    Chapter 1 The Exit Poll Phenomenon n election day in the United States, exit polls are the talk of the nation. Even before ballot- O ing has concluded, the media uses voters’ responses about their electoral choices to project final results for a public eager for immediate information. Once votes have been tallied, media commentators from across the political landscape rely almost exclusively on exit polls to explain election outcomes. The exit polls show what issues were the most important in the minds of the voters. They identify how different groups in the electorate cast their ballots. They expose which character traits helped or hurt particular candidates. They even reveal voters’ expectations of the government moving forward. In the weeks and months that follow, exit polls are used time and again to give meaning to the election results. Newly elected officials rely on them to substantiate policy mandates they claim to have received from voters. Partisan pundits scrutinize them for successful and failed campaign strategies. Even political strategists use them to pinpoint key groups and issues that need to be won over to succeed in future elections. Unfortunately, these same exit poll results are not easily accessible to members of the public interested in dissecting them. After appearing in the next day’s newspapers or on a politically ori- ented website, they disappear quickly from sight as the election fades in prominence. Eventually, the exit polls are archived at universities where only subscribers are capable of retrieving the data. But nowhere is a complete set of biennial exit poll results available in an easy-to-use format for curious parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Exit Polls Showed Him Ahead in Nearly Every Battleground State, in Many Cases by Sizable Margins
    The Center for Organizational Dynamics operates within the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Arts and Sciences, Graduate Division, conducting research and scholarship relevant to organizations, public affairs, and policy. Copyrights remain with the authors and/or their publishers. Reproduction, posting to web pages, electronic bulletin boards or other electronic archives is prohibited without consent of the copyright holders. For additional information, please email [email protected] or call (215) 898-6967 A Research Report from the University of Pennsylvania Graduate Division, School of Arts & Sciences Center for Organizational Dynamics The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy Steven F. Freeman1 [email protected] 2 December 29, 2004 Most Americans who listened to radio or surfed the internet on election day this year sat down to watch the evening television coverage thinking John Kerry won the election. Exit polls showed him ahead in nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizable margins. Although pre- election day polls indicated the race dead even or Bush slightly ahead, two factors seemed to explain Kerry’s edge: turnout was very high, good news for Democrats,3 and, as in every US 1 I would like to thank Jonathan Baron, Bernard B. Beard, Michael Bein, Mark Blumenthal, James Brown, Elaine Calabrese, Becky Collins, Gregory Eck, Jeremy Firestone, Lilian Friedberg, Robert Giambatista, Kurt Gloos, Gwen Hughes, Clyde Hull, Carolyn Julye, John Kessel, Mark Kind, Joe Libertelli, Warren Mitofsky, Michael Morrissey, John Morrison, Barry Negrin, Elinor Pape, David Parks, Kaja Rebane, Sandra Rothenberg, Cynthia Royce, Joseph Shipman, Jonathon Simon, Daniela Starr, Larry Starr, Barry Stennett, Roy Streit, Leanne Tobias, Andrei Villarroel, Lars Vinx, Ken Warren, Andreas Wuest, Elaine Zanutto, John Zogby, and Dan Zoutis for helpful comments or other help in preparing this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Overvoting and Representation
    Overvoting and Representation: An examination of overvoted presidential ballots in Broward and Miami-Dade counties1 Michael C. Herron2 Jasjeet S. Sekhon3 September 28, 2001 1The authors thank Walter R. Mebane, Jr., Rachel Friedstat, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. 2Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University. Herron worked on this paper while a Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Center for Basic Research in the Social Sciences, Harvard University. Phone: 847-676-2236. Address: 601 University Place, Evanston, IL 60208{1006 ([email protected]). 3Assistant Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University. Phone: 617-496-2426. Address: 34 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 ([email protected]) Abstract The closeness of the 2000 presidential election, especially in the state of Florida, has drawn attention to the importance of voting anomalies caused by ballot design, voting technology, and voter errors. In this paper we focus on a particular type of voter error: casting multiple votes for president on a single ballot. Ballots cast in this way are said to contain presidential overvotes, and we examine overvoting patterns in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, two large and prominent counties in Florida. Using a dataset which contains electronic images of all ballots cast in these counties for the 2000 election, we identify several de¯nitive patterns among overvoted ballots. First, we show that ballots with overvotes on non- presidential races were more likely to contain presidential overvotes compared to ballots with no overvotes elsewhere. Second, we show that ballots with presidential overvotes appear to have been cast by Democratically-inclined individuals and that Al Gore, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2000, appears on a disproportionate number of these ballots.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Night Estimation
    Journal of Of®cial Statistics, Vol. 18, No.2, 2002, pp 165±179 Election Night Estimation Warren J. Mitofsky1 and Murray Edelman2 1. What It's Like on the Front Line Our talk is about election night. For the most part we will tell you about what we did at CBS News. We also will include something about how those activities changed when the networks pooled their money in a common effort. We are going to tell you something about why the networks ®rst engaged in this enterprise. We will give you some under- standing of what it takes to simultaneously conduct 51 surveys of over 100,000 respond- ents and present the results to millions of viewers ± and almost never get the outcome wrong. And because ``almost never'' is not ``never'' we will tell you what happened in Florida in the last presidential election. Wethought theplaceto start was to getyou in themood. Wewant you to know what it feels like on a typical Election Day to be one of us. It starts the night before when we hope all the last-minute details have been dealt with. Everyone has his or her assignment. Everyone has been trained and rehearsed: the vote collectors at the precincts, the exit poll interviewers, the analysts, those entering and reviewing vote returns and data, those who use the results in the television and radio studios. There are literally tens of thousands of people in a myriad of jobs. All our reference materials are where they should be. All the phone numbers we need are handy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of 24-Hour Television News on American Democracy and the Daily Show As a Counterbalance to 24-Hour News: a History
    W&M ScholarWorks Undergraduate Honors Theses Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 5-2010 The Effect of 24-Hour Television News on American Democracy and The Daily Show as a Counterbalance to 24-Hour News: A History Thomas W. Queen College of William and Mary Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Queen, Thomas W., "The Effect of 24-Hour Television News on American Democracy and The Daily Show as a Counterbalance to 24-Hour News: A History" (2010). Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 669. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses/669 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Effect of 24-Hour Television News on American Democracy & The Daily Show as a Counterbalance to 24-Hour News ◊ A History BY Thomas Queen Copyright © 2010 by Thomas Queen All rights reserved. ii Contents Acknowledgements iv Preface 1 ONE Media in America 4 TWO The Election that Went Awry 24 THREE The Longer than Expected War 57 FOUR De Tocqueville’s Reef 99 Notes 109 Bibliography 119 iii Acknowledgements To my parents, who in middle school let me stay up to watch The Daily Show; to my professors, who finally got me to avoid passive voice; to my friends, who heard more about this project than they probably cared but listened anyway: thank you.
    [Show full text]
  • Television's Performance on Election Night 2000 a Report for CNN
    Television's Performance on Election Night 2000 A Report for CNN By Joan Konner, James Risser, and Ben Wattenberg January 29, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE CHARGE OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE II. PREAMBLE III. INTRODUCTION IV. SUMMARY FINDINGS V. RECOMMENDATIONS VI. THE REPORT VII. CONCLUSION VIII. ABOUT THE AUTHORS IX. APPENDICES 2 I. THE CHARGE OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE The three authors of this report were asked by CNN to constitute an independent committee to investigate the performance of CNN and to make findings and recommendations. Specifically, Tom Johnson, chairman and CEO of the CNN News Group, asked us to determine: What went wrong at CNN? Why did it happen? What should be done to guard against a recurrence in future elections? He gave us the freedom to question whomever we wished, to obtain any documents we wanted, to write a report that would be made public reaching whatever conclusions seemed warranted. At the root of Tom Johnson’s three questions we found two other broader ones that deserve consideration: What were the networks doing? Why were they doing it? II. PREAMBLE On Election Day 2000, television news organizations staged a collective drag race on the crowded highway of democracy, recklessly endangering the electoral process, the political life of the country, and their own credibility, all for reasons that may be conceptually flawed and commercially questionable. Their excessive speed, combined with an overconfidence in experts and a reliance on increasingly dubious polls, produced a powerful collision between the public interest and the private competitive interests of the television news operations and the corporations that own them.
    [Show full text]
  • Election Projections - How the Election Is Called
    Election Projections - How the Election is Called BACKGROUND ● There are 6 major news outlets that make election projections: ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, and the Associated Press (AP). They base their projections on a combination of polling data and raw votes. ● Until 2016, the 6 outlets, known as the “National Election Pool” (NEP), collaborated on polling. (Before 2000, this collaboration was called the “Voter News Service.”) In 2016, Fox and AP left the NEP. In 2018, the AP said it would use an election voter survey in place of exit polls. According to AEI, Fox is also using ​ ​ ​ ​ the AP’s approach. ● In September, the National Task Force on Election Crises sent a letter to NEP, the AP, and Fox asking ​ ​ about their election projections processes. Below are some of the findings from their responses. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT HOW THE OUTLETS WILL MAKE PROJECTIONS THIS YEAR ● Absentee ballots make exit polling less reliable. NEP’s model this year will expand phone polling ​ ​ (which was already done in states with high numbers of absentee voting). The AP will use Votecast, a ​ ​ phone survey that was tested in 2018. The sample sizes of both polling methods are similar, but the AP’s survey is more evenly distributed than the NEP’s, which is over-indexed in swing states. ● Decision desks are designed to be insulated from pressure from various sources, including affiliates ​ ​ who are paying for the service, newsroom executives/bureau chiefs, and outside parties (e.g., candidates and political parties). ○ NEP members have policies that create independence for their decision desks.
    [Show full text]
  • ELECTION PROJECTIONS: Estimating Election Outcomes
    11/28/2012 Statistical Science and the Art of Election Polling Scott Keeter Director of Survey Research Prepared for the CNSTAT public seminar “Reflections on Election Polling and Forecasting from Inside the Boiler Room” October 19, 2012 [email protected] 1 11/28/2012 Critics of Polling Were Very Vocal in 2012 A Tweet in Response to Our Late July Poll Showing Obama With a Sizeable Lead 2 11/28/2012 But National Polls Have Been Very Accurate Candidate Error in National Polling, 1992-2008 Year # of polls Candidate Error (%) 1992 7 1.1 1996 9 2.1 2000 10 1.1 2004 16 0.9 2008 19 0.9 Source: NCPP And State Polls Have Done Nearly As Well Candidate Error in State Polling,2002-2010 Year # of polls Candidate Error (%) 2002 98 2.3 2004 198 1.7 2006 152 2.0 2008 236 1.8 2010 202 2.1 Source: NCPP 3 11/28/2012 Thinking about the Challenges to Polls from a Total Survey Error Perspective Total Survey Error Errors of Non-Observation • Coverage Error – Cell phone only voters • Non-response Error – Partisanship; engagement • Sampling Error 4 11/28/2012 Total Survey Error Errors of Observation • Questions and questionnaires – Determining likely voters and who they will vote for • Interviewers • Mode • Data analysis – What to do with the undecided? Coverage Error 5 11/28/2012 Telephone Coverage 40 35 Households with 30 no phone 25 19.7% 20 15 10 5 0 1963 1970 1975 19801985- 1997 2001 Early Late Late Late 1986 2003 2005 2007 2011 Source: National Health Interview Survey 11 Telephone Coverage 40 36.2% 35 Households with Households with only 30 no phone
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Caution This System Is Dangerously Flawed
    THE CASE FOR CAUTION THIS SYSTEM IS DANGEROUSLY FLAWED JOAN KONNER Columbia University Introduction On any election day, interested ciu7.cns want to know one thing-who woo. News organi7.ations are in the business of geuing accurate rc$ultS to !heir liudience as quickl y as possible. but coun ting actual votes takes hours, and sometimes days. Beginning in the early 1%Os. news organizations developed ways of pro­ jccting lIIe outcome of races in order to speed the process of reporting before votes were actuall y counted. 1lx:y began 10 develop methods and systems of modeling and JXllling that could indicate. statistically. the likely winner in any given race. The motive was to give the aud ience whal it wanted--thc faster, the beuer. Of course., the news media intended to make their projcctiOO5 as acCUl"'dtc as possible. In lime. poll ing and analysis became increasingly sophisticated. Results from preelection s.ampk.s, along with extrapolations from precinct models., exit polls. and partial election returns, were combined in to what I will refer to as the networks' cl ccl i on~ay pol1 ing and projection system. This system provided th: basis for making election projections faster and belter, meaning with fewer mistakes. Year after year, the systems were improved, spurred on by competition among the news organi7.ations to be the first to repon OUtCOmes 10 their audiences. Not incidentally. the highly competitive polling and pr0- jection business grew increasingly rostly. In 1990. the first network pool for exit polling and projections. Voter Re­ search and Surveys (VRS), was formed with the ml.cntioo to mc<:! the in­ creasing costs and share expenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Post Election Analysis (1)” of the Frederick T
    The original documents are located in Box 50, folder “ Post Election Analysis (1)” of the Frederick T. Steeper Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 50 of the Frederick T. Steeper Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library I.deological. Pattern.s to the Presi.d,ential. Vote Republican Vote 90 Conservatives - 82 81 80 70 70 Moderates 60 ~ 53 50 48 49 44 Liberals 40 ~ 1 30 2 2 25 20 14 1 13 10 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 Ai.JI.I A '-f~ A :;t.j Lib?- c. ~o a ::ia il ,g Ideological Patterns to: us.. · ,..,. Hous,e· Vote R9Sublican Vote "The Swing" Conservatives 80 80 ~o 78 80 70 67 65~69 65 66 60 Moderates 50 45 43..., 3 42 43 43 43 42 42 43 .. 40 40~.. Liberals 30 20 20 20 19 18 18 16 16 10 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 A3q £; t./.S- CJ I.Jo /)a& A y~ (j l) f) jJ IJ S$ A';;..
    [Show full text]