Version 01 Codebook ------------------- CODEBOOK APPENDIX FILE 1994 POST-ELECTION STUDY (1994.TN) >> 1994 ENHANCED DATA VARIABLES STUDY DESIGNS STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992 (Variables V3004 through V7001) The 1992 American National Election Study 1992 was conducted by the Center for Political Studies of the Institute for Social Research, under the general direction of Warren E. Miller, Donald R. Kinder and Steven J. Rosenstone. Santa Traugott was the Director of Studies for the National Election Studies. Giovanna Morchio was the Study Manager, overseeing the study from very early planning stages through release of the 1992 data collection. This is the twenty-second in a series of studies of American national elections produced by the Political Behavior Program of the Survey Research Center and the Center for Political Studies, and it is the eighth traditional time-series study to be conducted under the auspices of National Science Foundation Grants (SOC77-08885, SES-8341310, and SES-8808361) providing long-term support for the National Election Studies. Since 1978, the National Election Studies have been designed by a national Board of Overseers, the members of which meet several times a year to plan content and administration of the major study components. Board members during the planning of the 1992 National Election Study included: Thomas Mann, The Brookings Institution (Chair); Stanley Feldman, University of Kentucky; Morris Fiorina, Harvard University; Mary Jackman, University of California at Davis; Gary C. Jacobson, University of California, San Diego; David Leege, Notre Dame University; Douglas Rivers, Stanford University; Virginia Sapiro, University of Wisconsin; John Zaller, the University of California at Los Angeles; Warren E. Miller, Arizona State University, ex officio; Donald R. Kinder and Steven J. Rosenstone, University of Michigan, ex officio. As part of the study planning process, a special planning committee was appointed, a pilot study conducted, and stimulus letters sent to members of the scholarly community soliciting input on study plans. David Leege chaired the 1992 Study Planning Committee which included from the board Stanley Feldman, Mary Jackman, Douglas Rivers, Virginia Sapiro, and three other scholars: Paul Beck, Ohio State University; Jack Citrin, University of California at Berkeley; and Leonie Huddy, State University of New York at Stony Brook. A pilot study was carried out in June-July of 1991 for the purpose of developing new instrumentation for the 1992 Election Study. New items were tested in the area of ethnic politics, gender consciousness and social altruism. It should be noted that the 1991 Pilot Study was simultaneously the 1990-1991 Panel Study on the Political Consequences of War. Data from the 1991 Pilot Study are available through the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR 9673). Results from the pilot study (summarized in "List of 1991 Pilot Study Reports,") were used by the Planning Committee in formulating recommendations to the Board about study content for the 1992 Pre- and Post-Election Surveys. Copies of the Pilot Study reports may be obtained by contacting the NES project staff, at the addresses given below. NES Project Staff Center for Political Studies Room 4026 Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Ann Arbor MI 48104 >> 1994 STUDY DESIGN, CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION STUDY DESIGN The 1992 National Election Study entailed both a pre-election interview and a post-election re-interview. Approximately half of the 1992 cases are comprised of empaneled respondents who were first interviewed in the 1990 National Election Study and later in the 1991 Political Consequences of War Study. The other half of the cases are a freshly drawn cross-section sample. (Details of the sample design are given in "Sample Design of the 1992 Pre- and Post-Election Study", below.) The panel component of the study design provides an opportunity to trace how the changing fortunes of the Bush presidency, from the high levels of approval at the start of the Gulf War, through the decline after the onset of a recession, affected voting in the November 1992 presidential election. It also permits analysts to investigate the origins of the Clinton and Perot coalitions as well as changes in the public's political preferences over the two years preceding the 1992 election. Altogether, 2485 citizens were interviewed in the 9 weeks prior to the November 3, 1992 election. [Note: The original study Staff release of the 1992 National Election Study in April, 1993 contained 2,487 cases. See the note on "A Note on Deletion of Cases", below, for further information about the two cases deleted from this edition of the collection.] To permit analysis of the impact of the unfolding election campaign, a random half of the sample was released to the field on September 1 and the other half on October 1st. 1359 of the pre-election interviews were conducted with panel respondents; 1126 with cross-section respondents. In the weeks following the election, 2255 pre-election respondents were reinterviewed; 1250 panel, 1005 cross-section. Further details of the administration of the surveys are given in "Study Administration", below. The two components of the study -- the panel and the new cross-section -- were designed to be easily used together to create a combined nationally representative sample of the American electorate. Several case weights are provided with this data set. V3008 (which incorporates sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification adjustments) should be used when analyzing the combined sample (the panel and the new cross-section respondents). V3009 (which incorporates sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification adjustments) should be used when analyzing the panel respondents alone. V7000 (which corrects for panel attrition and the aging of the panel respondents, but does not incorporate sampling, nonresponse and post- stratification adjustments) should be used when comparing either the panel respondents or the combined panel and new cross-section respondents to previous (unweighted) National Election Studies data collections. See "Sample Design of the 1992 Pre- and Post-Election Study", below, and the documentation for V3008, V3009, and V7000, for further information. STUDY CONTENT; SUBSTANTIVE THEMES The content for the 1992 Election Study reflects its double duty, both as the traditional presidential election year time-series data collection and as a panel study. The substantive themes represented in the 1992 questionnaires include: * interest in the political campaigns; concern about the outcome; and attentiveness to the media's coverage of the campaign * information about politics * evaluation of the presidential candidates and placement of presidential candidates on various issue dimensions * partisanship and evaluations of the political parties * knowledge of, contact with, and evaluation of House candidates (including questions on how their Representative voted on the Persian Gulf War resolution and whether he/she was implicated in the House banking scandal) ; opinions on term limitations * political participation: turnout in the Presidential primaries and in the November general election; other forms of electoral campaign activity * vote choice for President, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate, including second choice for President * personal and national economic well-being, with particular attention to the impact of the recession * positions on social welfare issues including: social security; government health insurance; federal budget priorities, and the role of the government in the provision of jobs and good standard of living * positions on social issues including: abortion, the death penalty; prayer in the schools; the rights of homosexuals; sexual harassment and women's rights * racial and ethnic stereotypes; opinions on school integration and affirmative action; attitudes towards immigrants (particularly Hispanics and Asians); opinions on immigration policy and bilingual education * opinions about the nation's most important problem and the most important issues discussed during the local congressional campaign * political predispositions: moral traditionalism; patriotism; political efficacy; egalitarianism; individualism; trust in government; racial prejudice; and feminist consciousness * social altruism and social connectedness * assessments of U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War and of U.S. foreign policy goals * feeling thermometers on a wide range of political figures and political groups; affinity with various social groups * detailed demographic information and measures of religious affiliation and religiosity Congressional Ballot Cards, Candidate Lists, and Candidate Numbers In the usual NES Post-Election survey, and for 1992, in the Pre-Election survey as well, respondents are asked several questions about their particular Congresspersons and Senators. Interviewers pre-edited questionnaires to fill in the names appropriate for the state and congressional district in which the respondent was living (or was living during the pre-election interview). Each candidate and Senator is assigned a unique number that reflects his or her incumbency status and party. (See Appendix 5: Candidate Number Codes and Lists.) Particular questions in the survey require the insertion by the interviewer during pre-editing of the names of candidates. See, for example, post-election question B1, which includes feeling thermometers for the various candidates. The Candidate Lists used by the interviewers, which show which candidates are associated with which congressional district and with which numbers they are tagged, can be found in Appendix 5. Asking questions about incumbent candidates is somewhat more problematic in a year when redistricting occurred, and for the Pre-Election survey there is the additional complication that a number of states held their Congressional primaries after the Pre-Election field work had started. Further details can be found at the documentation for Pre-Election questions J10-J11. Handling of Congressional Incumbency Where Redistricting has Occurred Throughout, whenever the word "incumbent" is used, its referent is a representative who was a member of the 102nd Congress; i.e., the Congress in session prior to the November 1992 General Election. Due to redistricting as a result of the 1990 U.S. Census, any given incumbent's district for the 103rd Congress may consist of a fairly different geographical area from the area covered by the district prior to the boundary changes. Therefore, prior to 1992, the "incumbent" may or may not have been the representative for the particular piece of geography (the sample segment or census tract) in which the respondent lives. For each sample segment, we have included in the dataset its 1992 congressional district number, v3019, and its congressional district number in 1990, v3020. By comparing the two, it can be determined whether the "incumbent" in question was actually the respondent's incumbent prior to the 1992 general election. "Lagged" Measures Obtained from 1990 and 1991 Interviews Slightly more than half of the respondents in the 1992 study were also interviewed in 1990 and 1991. Therefore, all of the variables associated with the 1990 Post-Election Study (ICPSR 9548) and the 1991 Political Consequences of War Study (ICPSR 9673) are available for use as "lagged" measures in the current release of this collection. STUDY ADMINISTRATION Pre-election Study Release of Sample To permit analysis of the impact of the unfolding election campaign and to minimize the relationship between interviews taken late in the campaign period and the difficulty of obtaining an interview, NES divided the Pre-Election study sample into two random parts. Administration of the first random half occurred between September 1 and September 30; the second half between October 1 and October 31st, with the first two days of November as "cleanup." The two part division applied to both panel and cross-section samples. Note that the study period began before Labor Day, the traditional start of the Election Studies (and Presidential campaigns). The combination of a late date for Labor Day (Sept. 7) and an early date for Election Day (Nov. 3rd) would have shortened our standard field period by about a week, which would have reduced the overall response rate. Sample "Replicates" To more closely tailor the field effort to the actual sample performance during this study, both parts of the sample (panel and cross-section) were randomly subdivided into five replicates, each of which is a proper, random subsample of the NES sample. Replicates 1 and 2 were considered the "base sample," certain to be released, with three replicates being held in reserve to be released for fieldwork October 1, 1992, if it was decided they were needed. Replicates 4 and 5 were released at that time. Survey Modes: Design and Implementation One of the administrative problems in fielding a panel study is that respondents have had an intervening period of time in which to relocate, perhaps at some remove from areas where field staff is maintained. Additionally, some of the SRC sample primary areas were replaced between 1990 and 1992, and therefore potentially some of the 1990 Election Study respondents lived in areas where SRC interviewers were no longer on staff. We estimated that between 50 and 125 respondents might have moved to areas in which SRC did not have interviewers, or might be living in their 1990 residence, in a place where SRC no longer maintained interviewing capability. (As it turned out, the total number of panel respondents that we interviewed who were "out of range" for either of these two reasons was 43.) It was our intention to interview as many panel respondents as possible, but we did not want to incur the additional costs associated with interviewer travel. Therefore, we prepared a truncated version of both Pre- and Post-Election Survey questionnaires, (the "Short-Form") to be administered over the telephone to those panel respondents who had moved out of range. Interviews, both in the Pre- and in the Post Election surveys, were also administered over the telephone to many respondents, both panel and cross-section, who did not meet the "panel out-of-range" criteria for telephone interviewing. The mis-implementation of the design also entailed the inappropriate use of the full-length questionnaire. Table 7, below, sums up the situation. In total, 86 percent of the interviews (91 percent before the election and 81 percent of those conducted after the election) were administered as mandated by the study design: face-to-face with the full length questionnaires or by phone for those panel respondents who moved out of range. A NOTE ON DELETION OF CASES In putting together the panel file, study staff examined with particular attention the work of one interviewer and decided that his entire production for 1990 was suspect. Two panel reinterviews in 1992 were thus based on 1990 interviews which were very likely faked in whole or very large part. The decision was made to eliminate these interviews from the 1992 dataset (and also from the panel file). Consequently, the total N for the ICPSR release of these data is 2485 as compared with a N of 2487 in the Study Staff release of the 1992 Cross-Section data. The tables found in this introduction were produced using the original Study Staff release of the data and reflect the original N of 2487. Table 7: Mode and Form Administration in the 1992 Pre-/Post Election Studies Panel Respondents Mode Questionnaire Pre-Election Post-Election Face-to-face(A) Full 1155 84.8% 951 76.%1 Phone(B) Short 149 11.0% 186 14.9% Phone Full 57 4.2% 113 9.0% Subtotal 1361 100.0% 1250 100.0% Cross Section Respondents Mode Questionnaire Pre-Election Post-Election Face-to-face(C) Full 1053 93.6% 830 82.6% Phone (D) Short 5 .4% 4 .4% Phone Full 68 6.0% 171 17.0% Subtotal 1126 100.0% 1005 100.0% Total Respondents Mode Questionnaire Pre-Election Post-Election Face-to-face Full 2208 88.8% 1781 79.0% Phone Short 154 6.2% 190 8.4% Phone Full 125 5.0% 284 12.6% Total 2487 100.0% 2255 100.0% A. The 1155 Pre-election respondents in this category include 16 Panel interviews taken F-T-F using the Spanish version of the questionnaire. B. The Pre-election respondents in this category include 1 Spanish language panel interview, taken by phone. C. The pre-election total includes 4 Spanish version questionnaires taken F-T-F. D. The 5 cases in the Pre-election category consist of 1 F-T-F and 3 Phone short-form, plus 1 Spanish language cross-section case. >> 1994 SURVEY FORMS: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION There were two[5] forms of both the Pre- and the Post- Election Study questionnaire: a short form, to be administered over the phone to panel respondents who were "out of range," as described above, and a standard, or full-length questionnaire to be administered to everyone else. The questions on the short-form were a subset of those on the full length questionnaires whose 70 minutes in length was thought to be unacceptably long for a telephone interview. 50 minutes worth of content was selected for the short form, both Pre- and Post-Election Surveys. The criteria for inclusion were that the questions were "core," i.e., questions part of the NES time-series, as opposed to recently piloted or topical items, or that they related to the focus of the 1991 Political Consequences of War Study. We decided not to repeat most of the demographics items for the approximately 100 panel respondents we expected would be interviewed with the short form, relying instead on their responses in the 1990 survey. Additionally, some congressional content was deleted, because of the difficulty in assigning respondents over the phone to the newly drawn congressional districts. Because we estimated the number of cases affected to be few and randomly scattered across the country, we did not design the instrument for the telephone. Except for the income question, we made no adjustments to the questionnaire for the difference in mode. In general, interviewers were expected to read response options to the respondent and to repeat them as necessary until they were clear to the respondent. All interviews with a short form questionnaire, except for Spanish language, and including "legitimate" or "out-of-range" panel respondent interviews, have been designated as partial interviews, in the result code variables for the Pre- and Post-Election Studies (v3033 and v5012). EVALUATION OF PROBLEMS IN STUDY IMPLEMENTATION The problems mentioned above did not become fully evident until coding was virtually completed, in the last week of February. At its March 1 meeting, the NES Board of Overseers, to whom these problems were reported, instructed the Principal Investigators to assess the significance of these problems with respect to data quality. This work was carried out by the Principal Investigators and members of the Study Staff in consultation with Board members, SRC methodologists and Center for Political Studies personnel as appropriate. The findings are available in NES Technical Report No. 43, available from NES Project Staff. As the Technical Report documents in detail, the inappropriate use of the telephone and the short-form questionnaire thankfully had only a negligible impact on the quality of the 1992 data. When the short-form questionnaire was used, it of course generated missing data on those items that appeared on the full-length questionnaire but not on the short-form. But this resulted in a very slight increase (less than .05 percentage points) in the standard errors of the affected variables. The pattern of missing data (from use of the short-form questionnaire) is unrelated to the demographic or political characteristics of respondents. Instead, interviewers turned to the short form when it appeared they would have difficulty securing an interview for other reasons having to do with the field administration of the study. The same holds for use of phone instead of face-to-face interviewing. Respondents interviewed over the phone are politically indistinguishable from those interviewed face-to-face. Attributes of the study administration, not attributes of the individual respondents, are associated with the propensity of interviewers to conduct some of their interviews over the phone. Finally, although some survey questions perform differently across the two modes of interviewing, the distribution of responses and the relationship among variables are substantively the same among phone and face-to-face respondents. RESPONSE RATES The Pre-Election study response rate for the cross section sample was 74.0%. Recalculating the response rate to eliminate 4 short-form, cross-section interviews (partials) results in a response rate of 73.7%[6]. For the panel sample, the response (or reinterview) rate is 77.7% when partials, or short form interviews, are included, but drops to 69.2% when they are excluded. Post-Election reinterview rates are 91.8% for the panel, including partials, and 85.0% excluding the partial or short-form interviews. The cross-section Post-Election reinterview rate was 89.3% including 4 partials; 88.9% excluding them. These calculations do not differentiate between face-to-face and telephone modes of interviewing. INTERVIEW COMPLETION RATE Table 8 lays out the number of interviews taken for each week elapsing after the Nov. 3 General Election. In 1992, 25.8% of the interviews were completed in the first two weeks after the election; 53.1% in the first four weeks. For comparison, in 1988, 55% of the interviews were taken in the first two weeks after the election, and 82% in the first four weeks. Table 8: Number of and Cumulative Percent of Interviews Taken in the Post-Election Study by Week of Interview DATES NUMBER OF CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE INTERVIEWS NUMBER OF PERCENT OF INTERVIEWS INTERVIEWS Nov. 4-Nov.10 237 237 10.5% Nov.11-Nov.17 344 581 25.8 Nov.18-Nov.24 372 953 42.3 Nov.25-Dec. 1 245 1198 53.1 Dec. 2- Dec. 8 348 1546 68.6 Dec. 9-Dec.15 278 1824 80.9 Dec.16-Dec.22 175 1999 88.7 Dec.23-Dec.29 86 2085 92.5 Dec.30-Jan. 5 125 2210 98.0 Jan. 6-Jan.13 45 2255 100.0% VARIABLES SUPPRESSED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY Starting with the 1986 Election Study, NES has released occupation code variables in somewhat less detail than in years past. This dataset includes a two-digit code with 71 categories corresponding to Census Bureau occupational groupings. Those who need the full occupation code for their research should contact the NES project staff for information about the conditions under which access may be provided. Similarly, the National Election Studies have not included information for census tracts or minor civil divisions since 1978. Permission to use the more detailed geographic information for scholarly research may be obtained from the Board of Overseers. More information about this is available from NES project staff. Coding of the new religious denomination variable is in some cases based on an alphabetic "other, please specify" variable. This variable is restricted for reasons of confidentiality, but access may be provided to legitimate scholars under established NES procedures. >> 1994 OPEN-ENDED MATERIALS Traditionally, the National Election Studies have contained several minutes of open-ended responses (for example, the candidate likes and dislikes). These questions are put into Master Codes by the SRC coding section. Other scholars have developed alternative or supplemental coding schemes for the questions (for example, the levels of conceptualization, released as ICPSR 8151). The Board of Overseers wishes to encourage these efforts but in ways which respect the NES and SRC obligation to protect the privacy and anonymity of respondents. Circumstances under which individuals may have access to transcribed versions of these questions have been worked out and those interested should contact the NES project staff for further details. >> 1993 STUDY DESCRIPTION 1993 SURVEY CONTENT AND OBJECTIVES Overview The 1993 Pilot Study is the second of a projected three wave study. The 1993 wave was in the field approximately one year after the first wave of the study which is the 1992 Pre- and Post-election study, from which the 1005 cross-section respondents were selected for reinterview in 1993. We anticipate that respondents will be interviewed for a third time as part of the 1994 Election Study. The three-wave study is designed to exploit the special circumstances of the 1992-94 elections: a minority president who is struggling to forge a majority coalition in the face of a strong third-party challenge, and the replacement in 1992 of fully one-quarter of the House of Representatives. Each presents an unique opportunity which we propose to seize through projects that are directed at understanding how electoral coalitions form (and decay) and how new members of the House secure their districts. Additionally, the Pilot Study fulfills its role as the vehicle for testing and developing new instrumentation for the 1994 National Election Study. The Clinton Coalition The 1994 elections present both a substantial opportunity and risk to the Democratic Party. The stakes are high: the party needs to consolidate the gains of 1992 and build a majority coalition. In some ways, the Clinton Administration began this political task from a position of extraordinary weakness. Although Bill Clinton captured a clear majority of the electoral votes, he entered the White House without a clear mandate, winning just a shade over 43 percent of the popular vote. Indeed, early interpretations of the 1992 election have emphasized less that Clinton won the Presidency and more that Bush lost it. At the same time, whether in possession of a popular mandate or not, Clinton came to Washington with significant legislative initiatives in mind. He introduced major proposals on taxes and spending. He appears determined to grapple with health care, not to tinker with it but to reform it fundamentally. Clinton's election has of course meant the return of unified government to the national scene, though early readings suggest that Republican unity in the Senate and Democratic defections from Clinton's proposals may undermine the promises of unified control. Still, there is the prospect of real change: major proposals, passed into law, with the consequences broadly felt throughout the country. From the perspective of coalition maintenance, this is a special political moment, one portentous for the future electoral success not only of the Democratic and Republican Parties but for third party challenges as well (a point we take up immediately below). We want to assess how all this consequential and high-profile political churning intrudes upon Clinton's capacity to hold together and expand his political coalition over the first critical years of his administration. How have each of Clinton's major policy initiatives added or subtracted support from his political coalition? The 1993 Pilot Study re-asks a number of items from the 1992 Study, and adds others, to give as complete a picture as possible of how Clinton is faring with the coalition which elected him. These items are: Evaluation of economy (V7238-7260) Approval ratings of several aspects of Clinton's performance in office (V7101-7120) Thermometer ratings of Bill and Hillary Clinton (V7130-7138) Who would R vote for if the election were held today (V7161) Liberal-conservative placement of Clinton (V7209- 7216) Traits and affects batteries (V7226-7230, V7267- 7270) Opinion on NAFTA (V7261-7266) Opinion on budget deficit (V7315-7323) From a slightly different angle, the 1992-1994 study, of which the 1993 Pilot Study is the middle piece, is also directed at more fully understanding the Perot phenomenon. That Perot's popularity is a political phenomenon is hardly open to question. Following an eccentric if not quixotic on and off and on again campaign, and in spite of the formidable hurdles which the American system places before third-party candidates, Perot won nearly one in five votes cast in 1992. In this respect, Perot did better than all but one third party candidate since the Civil War split the nation. Perot's pockets are deep enough to finance a continued high public profile. Perot's likely continued presence quickens interest on our part in understanding the maintenance and decay of his coalition as well. Even without the trappings and formal powers of the Presidency, Perot, like Clinton, faces the identical political problem of somehow hanging on to his supporters while recruiting still others as they become disenchanted with the alternatives. To what extent does Perot's continued support rest upon an ideological base? Or upon disenchantment with business as usual, a continuing protest against politics itself? Or upon the failure of government to deal with the economy or the budget deficit? Or should the Perot movement be understood in more personal terms, dependent upon continuing public displays of a winning style and personality? Or, finally, does it turn on contempt for the alternatives? A number of items which attempt to tap the sources and strength of Perot support have been included in the study. They include: Ross Perot and United We Stand feeling thermometers (V7131, V7149, V7150) Liberal-conservative placement for Perot (V7220- 7221) Traits and affects batteries (V7231-7235, V7271- 7274) Attitudes toward political parties ((V7295-7296, V7305, V7366-7370) Attitudes toward media, special interests, government in Washington (V7306-V7308) Membership in, contact by United We Stand America (V7312-7314) To examine the maintenance and decay of electoral coalitions, we have empaneled the cross-section respondents to the 1992 NES Post-Election Survey, interviewing them again in the fall of 1993, and proposing to interview them one final time in the weeks following the 1994 midterm election. The panel design is a powerful one for several reasons. First, an absolute requirement for a study of electoral coalitions is the successful identification of Clinton, Perot, and Bush voters (and non-voters as well). For Clinton, the immediate political challenge has several aspects: to maintain the support of those who voted for him in 1992; to build support among those who voted for his opponents, especially those who went Perot's way in 1992; and to awaken interest and eventually support among those millions who, in 1992, voted for no one at all. Attempting to assess vote a year or more away from the election, as we would have to do absent a panel design, invites error of the most pernicious sort. For example, citizens who in fact voted for Clinton in 1992 but who have since recoiled in horror at what he has done, might now report that they had voted for Bush. To get this project off the ground, we need to know what citizens did on election day 1992, and to know that, we treat the 1992 NES Survey as a first wave of a panel. Second, coalition maintenance and decay may be a classic case of little detectable movement at the aggregate level obscuring lots of off-setting movement at the individual level, as citizens move in and out of various partisan camps. Determining the fluidity of the Clinton and Perot coalitions can be uncovered with panel evidence. Finally, panel data will also permit the testing of alternative theories of political learning. Whether such theories come from formal, statistical formulations, as in Bayesian models, or from various psychological theories, a claim held in common is that what people absorb from their political experiences depends on their prior beliefs and sentiments. Learning is conditional on what citizens already know. This means that we must have baseline readings on citizens before Clinton's coming to power. The 1992 NES survey of course delivers handsomely on precisely this point. These data tell us what citizens thought in 1992 about the necessity of new taxes, the seriousness of the federal budget deficit, the need for health care reform, the conditions under which women should be permitted to have abortions, whether gays should be allowed to serve in the armed forces, the responsiveness of government institutions, the performance of the major parties, and much, much more. And this means that, having returned to these same citizens in 1993 and 1994, we will be in excellent position to understand in a fine-grained way how electoral coalitions are held together and how they fall apart. Securing the District Due to a combination of re-districting, scandal, and retirement, the 1992 House elections resulted in a dramatic turnover in personnel. More than one-quarter of the House was replaced: 110 new Representatives won in November, the most in nearly half a century This turnover provides an the opportunity of examining the ways in which new members of the House secure their districts against challenge in the next election. For the first time, we can examine the relationship that develops between representatives and their constituents in its formative stages during the first term in office. The advantages of incumbency have been a central theme of research on House elections and on the institution itself. Defections from party-line voting in House elections have increasingly favored the incumbent. These days, incumbent Representatives almost always win, often by overwhelming margins. Despite all the talk about anti-incumbent feelings in 1992, fully 93 percent of House incumbents seeking re-election were returned to office. Taking into account primary election defeats, this figure remains an impressive 88 percent. On the other hand, this re-election rate was the lowest since the Watergate election of 1974 and fell just 2 points short of being the lowest in forty years. Moreover, it does not take into account the unusually large number of representatives who choose not to run again in 1992, some of whom certainly would have been defeated. It is also true that winning incumbents were much more likely to find themselves in close contests in 1992 than in previous years. Still, in the face of re-districting, scandal, and widespread popular disdain for the institution of Congress, incumbents seeking re-election were rarely turned away. Success at under these highly unfavorable conditions testifies to the continuing electoral benefits of incumbency. We know that incumbent advantage accrues quickly: it is well-established, perhaps established in full, by completion of the first term in office. Indeed, a common measure of incumbency advantage is the "sophomore surge:" the gain typically registered in the representative's first re-election try. What happens during these first two years? How do newly elected members of the House consolidate their victories? Is the incumbency advantage secured as a result of the actions that members of Congress engage in during their first term of office, or is it secured as a result of their first re-election campaign? As it is typically investigated, the problem is impossible to unravel. The data we rely on are always investigated in the context of an election campaign. Moreover, it is precisely those incumbents who are deepest in trouble at election time who work their district the most. The study we propose here provides a clean test of the inherent (as opposed to campaign-related) advantages of incumbency. Many new members are precarious, and most no doubt believe that they are. Under these circumstances, do in fact new members of the House concentrate their attention and activities on their home district during their first term and, most important, do their constituents take notice? As a general matter, we know next to nothing about the impressions created by Representatives -- whether they are new to Congress or not--between elections. What in fact happens to the visibility of newly-elected representatives over the critical period of their first term? Do constituents tend to forget about their representatives between elections, and then learn about them again as the next campaign takes off? Or do constituents learn more and more about their representatives as the first term proceeds, a response to what Richard Fenno has called "the permanent campaign?" The 1992-1993-1994 panel data provide sharp tests of the alternative theoretical interpretations of the incumbency advantage. Of the 1005 respondents who make up the 1992 NES post-election cross-section, over a quarter (n=275) resided in congressional districts that sent a new member to Congress in 1992. Thus, the high turnover that occurred in the House in 1992 provides sufficient numbers of respondents to support detailed analysis of the processes by which newly-elected representatives (compared to returning incumbents) shore up their support during their first term in office. The panel design provides efficient measurement of the evolution of new Representatives' reputations among their constituents. With panel evidence in hand, patterns of learning and forgetting and alterations in trust and support, conditional on the views held by constituents before their Representatives went off to Washington, can be traced. The survey included extensive content on evaluations of incumbent members of Congress. Much of the content repeats the now-familiar congressional batteries. Also, the 1994 study included an experiment in the layout of the Ballot Card. Respondents were presented alternative versions of the ballot identical in content, but different in design. For sample ballots please contact the NES Study staff (note: the ASCII text format of this file does not allow inclusion of Ballot card design within the 1994 codebook). Recall of candidates running in "this district this past November" (V7121-7129) Thermometer rating of incumbent; recall what job he/she holds? (V7136-7137) Likes/dislikes of incumbent (V7162-7173) Contact with U.S. Representative incumbent (V7174-7183) Vote for Representative (V7184-7185) Approve of way Representative handling job (V7191-7194) Does R's representative support Clinton's legislative proposals (V7195-V7199) Did he/she vote for Clinton's deficit reduction package (V7200-7202) Does Representative do a good job of keeping in touch (V7203) Liberal-conservative placement of Representative (V7222-7223) Developing New Instrumentation The design of the 1993 Pilot Study replicates one NES successfully implemented in 1990-91-92 to assess the political impact of the Persian Gulf War. In this design, the odd- year Pilot Study serves double duty as a platform both from which to conduct the second wave of the panel and to carry out the research and development work for the subsequent year's election study. One section of development work (variables 7371- 7422) follows a proposal made by Laura Stoker, to study the interest basis of political attitudes. Questions are asked about perceived interests of several groups (wealthy, poor, middle class, blacks, whites), as well as self and national interest, in three domains: National health insurance (V7374-7384) Affirmative action (V7405-7422) School choice (V7385-7404) Half of the respondents received the questions about affirmative action in lieu of the school choice questions while the other half got the school choice questions instead of those relating to affirmative action. Douglas Strand proposed a number of questions relating to attitudes toward homosexuals and about policies affecting homosexuals. The attitudes toward homosexuals are measured by asking Rs whether: Parents should encourage boys to be masculine and girls to be feminine (V7289-7294) Homosexuality is a matter of choice (V7336-7339) Homosexuals try to seduce non-homosexuals (V7340- 7343) The idea of homosexuality disgusting or uncomfortable (V7348-7351) He/she worries about getting AIDS or other disease from homosexuals (V7348-7351) Homsexuality is unnatural (V7352-7355) Homosexuals have too much/too little influence (V7356-7360) Homosexuality is against the will of God (V7361-7365) Attitudes towards policy relating to homosexuals are measured by these items: Favor or opppose laws protecting homosexuals from job discrimination (V7324-7327) Whether homosexuals should serve in military (V7328-7331) Should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children (V7332-7335) A number of experiments in the survey response also are included in the Pilot Study. These include: Budget package vs. deficit reduction package (V7200) Experiment in wording of the vote choice for Representative question-reading candidate name as well as party, versus reading only party labels (V7185, V7283) Reversing order of self versus political object placement on liberal conservative 7-pt scale (V7205-7219) Certainty probe on liberal-conservative scale; self and other objects (V7208, V7211, V7216, V7219, V7221, V7223) Experiments on nature of followup: strength versus amount (lot, little) (V7263, V7266, V9\7291, V7294, V7300, V7308) Experiements on length of followups: short versus verbose ((V7102-7104, V7349-7351) order in which groups were presented in the interest basis of politics section was reversed for half the sample (V7374-7422) 1993 STUDY CHARACTERISTICS AND ADMINISTRATION The 1993 Pilot Study was a telephone reinterview of (cross-section) respondents to the NES 1992 Pre- and Post-Election Study. Interviewing was carried out by the Telephone Facility of the Survey Research Center, the Institute for Social Research. Field period was Sept. 23 --Nov. 24, 1993 Average interview length was 42 minutes 750 interviews were taken, including 4 partials Response rate was 74.6 percent; cooperation rate was 88.4 percent (See below) The study was CATI -- there is no paper version of the Questionnaire Response Rate Calculations This is a Panel Study, and response rate calculations are somewhat different than those for an initial contact study, primarily because because there is no "non-sample" category. Every one of the 1005 persons we originally interviewed in the 1992 Post -election study is, by definition, eligible for a reinterview. (1992 respondents who were interviewed in the Pre-election study only were not part of the 1993 study sample.) We reinterviewed 750 of these 1005 respondents to the 1992 study, for a strictly construed reinterview rate of 74.6 percent. 98 respondents from the 1990 Study refused to be reinterviewed. An additional 157 respondents could not cooperate because they were ill or for some other reason physically unable to complete a telephone interview; because they were not locatable; or because they did not have a telephone and did not respond to our requests to call the Telephone Facility. A cooperation rate, which excludes the 157 noninterview cases, is calculated at 88.4 percent. The Telephone Facility and NES staff collaborated on a several step plan to boost response rate and to reduce panel attrition. There were several mailings to the respondents, including a thank-you letter, a respondent report, and an advance contact letter enclosing a small clock as an incentive. The field period was long enough to provide time to track respondents. Persuasion letters were sent, to those who were initially reluctant to participate. An 800-number was set up for respondents to call for further information about the study. In the late stages of interviewing, monetary incentives were offered to 42 reluctant respondents. Finally, the study benefitted from having a highly committed and skilled cadre of interviewers. Interviewer training, pretesting and debriefings The first draft of the questionnaire was pretested by picking at random telephone numbers from local (not Ann Arbor) telephone exchanges. 30 inter- viewers were taken in this way by a mixture of experienced and new interviewers. Study staff "debriefed" the interviewers on their own and respondents' reactions to each question in the pretest instrument. These pretest interviews were also tape recorded, and new questions were "behavior coded" for more quantitative indications of problems with these questions. A separate debriefing was held for the behavior coders. Information from both of these debriefings (which were contradictory on certain points) was incorporated into the production instrument. Standard practice for an SRC study calls for a study guide, listing study objectives and procedures, as well as any special information that interviewers need to know about specific questions. (A copy of this document, as well as study guides for all previous studies, is available from NES Project Staff.) Prestudy conferences with all interviewers and NES staff and PIs gave an opportunity to train on specific questions, and answer concerns of interviewers. Midway through the interviewing, NES staff and PI met with interviewers to hear directly from them how the study was proceeding and how, in their opinion, new sections of the questionnaire were working. A full report of this debriefing is included in Appendix A. Forms Assignment When the Board began planning for this study, we were budgeted for about 40 minutes of interview time, and a number of experiments were proposed. In order to meet these objectives, respondents were randomly assigned to one of four forms. (Variable 7003 records the form assignment.) Randomization Responses to survey questions can be affected by questions that have been asked previously in the survey. There are many survey questions, like the feeling thermometers, where lists of objects are presented for evaluation by respondents. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify a single order for the items which eliminates response effects. An alternative is to randomize the order in which items on a list are presented to respondents. The CATI system used by the SRC Telephone Facility, AUTOQUEST, has a randomizing function and this was implemented for the feeling thermometer (variables V7130-7136, 7138-7141). No information as to the order in which the thermometer items were asked for a given respondent was preserved. Congressional District Identification for Movers One of the goals of the multiple advance mailings to the 1992 respondents was to get change of address information from local post offices. When we got information that a respondent had moved, and to where, study staff attempted to determine, from what was known of the respondent's new location, in which congressional district the respondent now lived. The name of the member of Congress for that district was then substituted throughout the questionnaire for the name of the member of Congress who was elected in the district in which the respondent lived at the time of the 1992 interview. In a few cases, the information that the respondent had moved was not elicited until the interview was actually underway. When this happened, the interview continued, using the original member of Congress. Organization and Documentation of the Dataset Data for all of the variables and all of the cases in the first wave of the panel, i.e., the 1992 Pre- and Post-election Study, are included in this dataset. Please note that this means that although there are 750 respondents in the 1993 Pilot Study, there are actually 1005 records in the Pilot dataset; one for each (cross-section) respondent to the 1992 Post-election Study. Respondents in the 1992 study who were not re-interviewed in the 1993 wave are assigned missing data codes on the 1993 variables. Documentation for the 1993 Study is separate from the documentation (i.e., codebook) for the 1992 Election Study. Since the variable numbers for the 1992 wave of the study re the same in the Study Staff and the Consortium Releases of the 1992 Election Study, users may use whichever version of that documentation they now have. Users who do not have any 1992 documentation available to them should specify that fact when ordering. The documentation for the 1993 wave is hard-copy, but users may also receive the documentation as WordPerfect 5.2 files or as an ASCII text file. The dataset is an ASCII, raw data file accompanied by SAS/SPSS control cards. There is no OSIRIS dataset. Documentation and dataset are available through the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR User Services may be contacted by phone (313.763- 5010) or by Internet E-Mail (icpsr_netmail@um.cc.umich.edu) for further information. >> 1993 SAMPLE DESIGN: TECHNICAL MEMORANDA 1994 NATIONAL POST-ELECTION STUDY SAMPLE DESIGN STUDY POPULATION The study population for the 1994 National Post-Election Study (NES) is defined to include all United States citizens of voting age on or before the 1994 Election Day. Eligible citizens must have resided in housing units, other than on military reservations, in the forty-eight coterminous states. This definition excludes persons living in Alaska or Hawaii and requires eligible persons to have been both a United States citizen and eighteen years of age on or before the 8th of November 1994. MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN The 1994 NES is based on a multi-stage area probability sample selected from the Survey Research Center's (SRC) National Sample design. Identification of the 1994 NES sample respondents was conducted using a four stage sampling process--a primary stage sampling of U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and counties, followed by a second stage sampling of area segments, a third stage sampling of housing units within sampled area segments and concluding with the random selection of a single respondent from selected housing units. A detailed documentation of the SRC National Sample is provided in the SRC publication titled 1980 SRC National Sample: Design and Development. Primary Stage Selection The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSUs), which depending on the sample stratum are either MSAs, single counties or groupings of small counties, is based on the county-level 1980 Census Reports of Population and Housing. Primary stage units were assigned to 84 explicit strata based on MSA/Non-MSA status, PSU size, and geographic location. Sixteen of the 84 strata contain only a single self-representing PSU, each of which is included with certainty in the primary stage of sample selection. The remaining 68 nonself-representing strata contain more than one PSU. From each of these nonself-representing strata, one PSU was sampled with probability proportionate to its size (PPS) measured in 1980 occupied housing units. The full SRC National Sample of 84 primary stage selections was designed to be optimal for surveys roughly two to three times the size of the 1994 NES. To permit the flexibility needed for optimal design of smaller survey samples, the primary stage of the SRC National Sample can be readily partitioned into smaller subsamples of PSUs such as one-half sample or two-thirds sample partition. Each of the partitions represents a stratified subselection from the full 84 PSU design. The one-half partition of the 1980 National Sample (i.e., the "A" primary sampling units or PSUs) includes 11 of the 16 self-representing MSA PSUs and a stratified subsampling of 34 of the 68 nonself-representing PSUs of the SRC National Sample. The two-thirds partition includes all of the "A" PSUs plus "B1" PSUs, i.e., 5 additional self-representing PSUs and 11 additional nonself-representing PSUs. Since the 1994 NES desired comparison of data over time from 1992 NES respondents, as well as a representative sample of eligible 1994 respondents, the 1994 NES sample design includes both a panel and a cross-section component. The panel component of the 1994 design consists of all [1] respondents from the cross-section component of the 1992 NES sample. The 1994 cross-section component is a new selection of respondents from an area probability sample of households taken from the two-thirds partition of the SRC National Sample. [1] The Panel consists of all 1005 Respondents from the 1992 NES study Cross-Section sample. Of these, 925 were recontacted in the 1993 NES Pilot Study (a follow-up of the 1992 NES survey), of which 750 were re-interviewed, 98 refused to be re-interviewed and 77 could not be re-interviewed at that time due to some 'permanent' condition. 80 of the 1005 1992 Cross-section respondents could not be found for re-interview in 1993. Due to sample design decisions in 1992, when the NES sample moved from using the one-half sample partition to the two-thirds sample partition of the SRC National Sample, the cross-section portion of the 1992 NES sample included a disproportionate number of selections from segments in "B1" PSUs (see Table 2). This same disproportionate distribution is, of course, reflected in the 1994 Panel component of the 1994 NES sample. While this does lead to some statistical inefficiency in the form of increased variance of survey estimates relative to that of an even distribution across the two-thirds partition primary areas, since the "B1" PSU areas do represent a proper subsample of the 1980 National Sample design, separate longitudinal analysis of the Panel component of the 1994 NES may be undertaken as well as analysis of combined Panel and Cross-section data [2]. [2] Analysis of pooled data from respondents from both components of the 1994 NES sample requires a strong assumption about the nature of the attrition of the 1992 cross-section sample. It must be assumed that panel attrition is not correlated with variables under consideration in the analysis. Table 1 identifies the PSUs for the 1994 National Election Study by MSA status and Region. The "B1" PSUs in the Panel portion of the sample design which received the disproportionate allocation in 1992 to supplement the half-sample are shown in italic print on this table; all PSUs on this table are proportionately represented in the 1994 two-thirds Cross- Section Sample. Table 1: PSUs in the 1994 NES Post-Election Survey By MSA Status and Region (B1 PSUs are marked *) REGION Self-representing MSAs Northeast New York, NY-NJ Philadelphia, PA-NJ Boston, MA Nassau-Suffolk, NY* Pittsburgh, PA North Chicago, IL Central Detroit, MI St. Louis, MO Minneapolis, MN-WI* South Washington, DC-MD-VA* Dallas-Ft Worth, TX* Houston, TX Baltimore, MD Atlanta, GA* West Los Angeles, CA San Francisco, CA REGION Nonself-representing MSAs Northeast Buffalo, NY Newark, NJ* New Haven, CT Atlantic City, NJ Manchester, NH North Milwaukee, WI Central Dayton, OH Kansas City, MO-KS* Des Moines, IA Grand Rapids, MI Fort Wayne, IN Steubenville, OH Saginaw, MI* South Birmingham, AL Columbus, GA-AL Miami, FL Jacksonville, FL* Lakeland, FL McAllen, TX Waco, TX* Wheeling, WV Knoxville, TN Richmond, VA West Seattle, WA Denver, CO Anaheim, CA Riverside, CA* Fresno, CA Eugene, OR Phoenix, AZ* REGION Non-MSAs Northeast Schuyler, NY Gardner, MA* North Sanilac, MI Central Decatur, IN* Saline, NE Mower, MN South Bulloch, GA Sabine, LA* Hale, TX Ashley, AR Bedford, TN Montgomery, VA* Robeson, NC West ElDorado-Alpine, CA Carbon, WY Second Stage Selection of Area Segments The second stage of the 1994 NES National Sample was selected directly from computerized files that were prepared from the 1990 [3] Census file (PL94-171 file on CD Rom) which contains the block-level 1990 Census total housing unit (HU) data. The designated second-stage sampling units (SSUs), termed "area segments", are comprised of census blocks in the metropolitan (MSA) primary areas and either census blocks or enumeration districts (EDs) in the rural areas of non-MSA primary areas. Each SSU block, block combination or enumeration district for non-MSA PSUs was assigned a measure of size equal to the total 1980 occupied housing unit count for the area; MSA SSU block(s) were assigned a minimum measure of 72 1990 total HUs per SSU. Second stage sampling of area segments was performed with probabilities proportionate to the assigned measures of size (PPS). [3] Non-MSA segments were selected from the 1980 Census summary tape file series STF1B file, with minimum SSU size of 50 occupied HUs. A three-step process of ordering the SSUs within the primary areas produced an implicit stratification of the area segments in the second stage sampling frame, stratified at the county level by geographic location and population. Area segments were stratified within county at the Minor Civil Division (MCD) level by size and income, and at the block and ED level by location within the MCD or county. (For details, refer to the SRC publication, 1980 National Sample: Design and Development.) For the 1994 NES Panel/Cross-section sample the number of area segments used in each PSU varies. In the self-representing (SR) PSUs the number of sample area segments varied in proportion to the size of the primary stage unit, from a high of 12 Cross-section and 7 Panel area segments in the self-representing New York MSA, to a low of 4 Cross-section and no Panel area segments in the smaller self-representing PSUs such as Pittsburgh and Boston MSAs. Most Nonself-representing (NSR) PSUs were represented by 6 Cross-section and 2 Panel area segments except for "B1" PSUs for which there are either 5 or 6 Panel segments. A total of 554 area segments were selected, 191 Panel and 363 Cross-Section segments, 157 in the sixteen self-representing PSUs and 397 in the nonself-representing PSUs as shown in Table 2. In most cases, both Cross-Section and Panel selections were been made from the same area segments within each PSU, so in actual fact a total of 376 distinct National Sample area segments have been used for the 1994 NES Post-Election Study. Table 2: Number [4] of Cross-Section and Panel Area Segments in the 1994 NES Sample Showing PSU Name, National-Sample Stratum and Partition, and MSA Status N. Samp National Sample # of 1994 NES # of 1994 NES PSU #/ PSU Name Cross-section Panel Sample Partition Sample Segs. Segments Six Largest Self-representing PSUs 501 A New York, NY-NJ 12 (7) 12 502 A Los Angeles, CA 12 (5) 12 503 A Chicago, IL 8 8 504 A Philadelphia, PA-NJ 6 6 505 A Detroit, MI 6 6 506 A San Francisco, CA 6 (5) 6 Ten Remaining Self-representing PSUs 507 B1 Washington, DC-MD-VA 6 6 508 B1 Dallas-Ft Worth, TX 6 6 509 A Houston, TX 6 0 510 A Boston, MA 4 0 511 B1 Nassau-Suffolk, NY 4 4 512 A St Louis, MO-IL 4 0 513 A Pittsburgh, PA 4 0 514 A Baltimore, MD 4 0 515 B1 Minneapolis, MN-WI 4 4 516 B1 Atlanta, GA 4 4 Nonself-representing MSAs: Northeast 517 A Buffalo, NY 6 2 518 B1 Newark, NJ 6 6 521 A New Haven, CT (5) 6 2 523 A Atlantic City, NJ (5) 6 2 524 A Manchester, NH 6 2 Nonself-representing MSAs: North Central 526 A Milwaukee, WI 6 2 527 A Dayton, OH 6 2 528 B1 Kansas City, MO-KS 6 6 529 A Des Moines, IA 6 2 531 A Grand Rapids, MI 6 2 532 A Fort Wayne, IN 6 2 533 A Steubenville, OH-WV 6 2 534 B1 Saginaw, MI 6 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: South 536 A Birmingham, AL 6 2 539 A Columbus, GA-AL 6 2 540 A Miami, FL 6 (1) 2 542 B1 Jacksonville, FL 6 6 543 A Lakeland, FL 6 2 544 A McAllen, TX 6 2 545 B1 Waco, TX (5) 6 6 547 A Wheeling, WV-OH 6 2 549 A Knoxville, TN 6 2 550 A Richmond, VA 6 2 Nonself-representing MSAs: West 553 A Seattle, WA 6 2 555 A Denver, CO 6 2 556 A Anaheim, CA 6 2 557 B1 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 6 6 558 A Fresno, CA 6 2 559 A Eugene, OR 6 2 560 B1 Phoenix, AZ 6 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: Northeast 463 A Schuyler, NY 6 2 464 B1 Gardner, MA 6 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: North Central 465 A Sanilac, MI 6 2 466 B1 Decatur, IN 6 6 468 A Saline, NE 6 2 470 A Mower, MN 6 2 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: South 473 A Bulloch, GA 6 2 474 B1 Sabine, LA 6 5 476 A Hale, TX 6 2 477 A Ashley, AR 6 2 478 A Bedford, TN 6 2 480 B1 Montgomery, VA 6 5 481 A Robeson, NC 6 2 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: West 482 A ElDorado-Alpine, CA 6 (1) 2 484 A Carbon, WY 6 2 Total Number of Segments (363) 366 (191) 206 [4] The number of segments shown for the 1994 Panel is the expected count; it is based on the number of 1992 Cross-Section segments. It is possible that some of these 1992 segments yielded no 1992 interviews and so do not actually show up in the 1994 Panel. The total number of segments shown for the 1994 Cross-section sample also includes three segments from which no listed HU was selected for the 1994 cross-section, due to few or no HU listings for that segment. Where different, the actual number of segments having selections in 1994 is shown in parentheses to the left. Third Stage Selection of Housing Units For each area segment selected in the second sampling stage, a listing was made of all housing units located within the physical boundaries of the segment. For segments with a very large number of expected housing units, all housing units in a subselected part of the segment were listed. The final equal probability sample of housing units for the 1994 NES was systematically selected from the housing unit listings for the sampled area segments. The new Cross-Section component of the 1994 NES sample design was selected from the SRC National Sample to yield an equal probability sample of households. The distribution of the 1994 cross-section sample is that required by the two-thirds design of the SRC National Sample. The overall probability of selection for 1994 NES Cross-Section households was f=.00001885 or .1885 in 10,000. The equal probability sample of households was achieved for the Cross-Section design by using the standard multi-stage sampling technique of setting the sampling rate for selecting housing units within area segments to be inversely proportional to the PPS probabilities used to select the PSU and area segment [5]. [5] Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. The 1994 Panel consists of all respondents for whom a complete interview was obtained in the 1992 NES Cross-section sample. 1005 1992 cross-section interview HUs make up the 1994 Panel. Fourth Stage Respondent Selection Within each sampled new cross-section housing unit, t1he SRC interviewer prepared a complete listing of all eligible household members. Using an objective procedure described by Kish (1949) [6] a single respondent was then selected at random to be interviewed. Regardless of circumstances, no substitutions were permitted for the designated respondent. This technique had also been used in 1992 to select the original Panel respondents. In 1994 the same Panel respondent (R) was sought for interview as had been interviewed in 1992. [6] Kish, L. (1949). "A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol 44, pp. 380-387. SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The targeted completed interview sample size for the 1994 NES Post-Election Survey was n = 1,750 total cases. In the original sample size computation, the following assumptions were made for the cross-section component of the sample: response rate for post-election interview = .74, combined occupancy/eligibility rate = .83 and change from updating the sample HU listings = 1.02. The updating was to include only "Type II" updating, i.e., only changes found at selected lines at the time of interviewing; no pre-study update was felt to be necessary due to the fact that most of the selected segments had been used and updated recently on other SRC studies (Health and Retirement Survey and the Asset and Health Dynamics Survey). The assumption as to occupancy/eligibility rate was derived from survey experience in the 1986 NES Post Election Survey [7] and that regarding response rate was based on the 1992 cross-section component outcome for the pre-election interview [8]. The assumptions made for the panel component were: .915 recontact rate based on the .923 recontact rate in the 1993 NES Pilot Study for 1992 cross-section respondents (i.e., same respondents as the current 1994 Panel), .691 response rate for the post-election interview based on NES experience from 1990-1992 in recontacting respondents three times over a two year period, and at .975 change from the update assuming some loss of HUs among panel respondents and inability to track the respondent to a new address. [7] The 1986 NES was the most recent NES sample using the two-thirds National Sample without alteration (e.g., increasing number of segments in the B1 areas as in 1992). Occupancy/eligibility rate was .835. [8] The response rate in 1986 had been unusually low, and it was felt that the more recent experience in the two-thirds partition PSUs would be the best estimate--less affected than occupancy/eligibility rate by the increased number of segments in B1 areas. Table 3 provides a full description of the original sample design specifications. Table 4 shows those specifications and assumptions applied to the actual selected Cross-section component of the 1994 NES Sample and also indicates the number of HU listings assigned to each replicate. Table 3: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions 1994 National Post-Election Survey Cross-Section Component Panel Component Total Completed Post interviews 1,130 620 1,750 Response Rate .74 .691 Eligible sample households 1,527 897 2,945 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate[9] .83 NA Panel Recontact Rate NA .915 Sample Units 1,840 980 3,385 Change from Update 1.02 .975 Total Sample lines 1,804 1,005 2,809 [9] Based on field experience in 1986 NES study. Table 4: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions Applied to the Selected Cross-Section Sample Lines for the 1994 National Post-Election Survey Base Reserve Sample Sample Replicates Total Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Completed Interviews 1,097 31 31 31 1,190 Response Rate .74 .74 .74 .74 .74 Designated Respondents 1,482 42 42 42 1,608 Occupancy/ Elig Rate[10] .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 Sample Units 1,783 51 51 51 1,939 Change from Update 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Total Sample lines 1,751 50 50 50 1,901 [9] Based on field experience in 1986 NES study. To most closely tailor the field effort to the sample field experience during this study, the cross-section sample had four replicates designated (see Table 4). Each replicate is a proper subsample of the NES sample. Replicate 1, considered the "base sample", was to be released for interviewing to begin November 9, 1994, the day following Election Day 1994. The other three replicates of the cross-section sample (Replicates 2-4) were designated "Reserve" replicates, none, one or more to be released for field work no later than November 21, 1994 at the discretion of NES study staff based on daily monitoring of field results from Release 1. Reserve replicates 2-4 of the cross-section component of the NES sample were never, in fact, released for field work. A subsampling of one-third of selected addresses was made in certain cases when selected lines were determined to be within locked buildings, in gated subdivisions or in areas which posed a danger to interviewing staff. This allowed concentration of greater field effort in these circumstances to obtain at least some interviews. In cases where this was done, appropriate weighting of the results will be used to compensate. (See Table 5.) SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES Table 5 compares the original sample design specifications and assumptions for the new Cross-Section Component of the 1994 NES (as in Table 3) applied to the released cross-section sample (Replicate 1) to the outcome for the final Cross-Section sample. Table 6 makes a similar comparison for the Panel Component of the 1994 NES Sample and Table 7 presents a summary of the figures for the combined Cross-Section/Panel Sample. Table 5: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the Cross-Section Component of the 1994 National Post-Election Survey Original Actual Outcome Specifications & Assumptions Applied to: Actual Release (Replicate 1) Completed Interviews 1,097 1,036 Response Rate .74 .721 Designated Respondents 1,482 1,436 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate .83 .824 1,740 Subsampling for dangerous/ locked areas -- .99[11] Sample HU listings 1,786 1,757 Sample growth from update[12] 1.02 1.00 Selected Sample lines 1,751 1,751 [11] One percent of the released sample was lost due to subsampling in three locked and dangerous segment areas; 17 of the 20 selected lines excluded from these six segments were in replicate 1. These lines were assigned a result code of '75' and considered 'Non-Sample' lines. [12] Since only the Type II updating process was applied to the cross-section component of the 1994 NES Sample, the update inflation factor was set at 1.02 -- slightly lower than the usual factor of 1.03 typical of combined Type I (pre-study) and Type II updating inflation applied to the National Sample. Based on the daily monitoring of field results, on November 21, 1994 NES study staff decided that it would be a better use of study resources to raise the cross-section response rate rather than to release additional cross-section sample which might have had the effect of further reducing the response rate. Therefore no reserve replicates of the cross-section sample were released. Table 6 /s shows the panel component sample outcome for the 1994 NES Post-Election Survey. Of course, in this component all sample lines were released; no reserve replicates were designated to be withheld. Due to extremely conservative original assumptions, the actual number of interviews obtained exceeded even the most optimistic projection by nearly 60 interviews. This has more than made up for the fewer than anticipated cross-section interviews which can be seen in Table 7, where entire 1994 NES sample design projections are compared with the combined sample outcome. Table 6: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the Panel Component of the 1994 National Post-Election Survey Original Actual Outcome Specifications & Assumptions Applied to Release Completed Interviews 620[13] 759 Response Rate .691[14] .770 HHs with Eligible Resp 897 986 Panel Recontact Rate .917 .981 Sample Units 980 1,005 Change from update .975 Total Panel Cases 1,005 1,005 [13] Actually the projection ranged from 620-700 completed interviews. See comments in following footnote. [14] An overall Panel response rate of 69.1% was assumed, based on previous recontact experience (response rate of 1990 Pilot Study respondents to the 1992 NES Pre-Election Study follow-up): 750 cases were interviewed twice previously at 76.6% response rate = 575 cases, and 255 other cases combined 17.6% response rate = 45 cases. Removing the change from update and recontact rate (1005 - 25 - 83 = 897), overall response rate: 620/897 = .691. This was admittedly a very conservative estimate and actual projection of expected number of interviews was a range of 620-700. Table 7: Figures for Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the Combined Cross-Section/Panel Sample. 1994 National Post-Election Survey Original Actual Outcome Specifications & Assumptions Completed Interviews 1,750 1,795 Overall Response Rate .722 .741 Eligible Sample HH 2,424 2,422 Occ/Elig/Recontact Rate .860 .877 Total Sample HU listings 2,820 2,762 Overall Change from update 1.004 1.002 Selected Sample lines 2,809 2,756 >> WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1994 NES DATA The area probability sample design for the 1994 NES results in an equal probability sample of U.S. households. However, within sample households a single adult respondent is chosen at random to be interviewed. Since the number of eligible adults may vary from one household to another, the random selection of a single adult introduces inequality into respondents' selection probabilities. In analysis, a respondent selection weight should be used to compensate for these unequal selection probabilities. The value of the respondent selection weight is exactly equal to the number of eligible adults in the household from which the random respondent was selected. The use of the respondent selection weight is strongly encouraged, despite past evaluations which have shown these weights to have little significant impact on the values of NES estimates of descriptive statistics. The Sampling Section has provided two final person-level analysis weights which incorporate sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification factors. One weight variable (#5) is for use with Panel cases only; the other weight variable (#4) is for the 1994 NES Cross-section (which includes both panel and new cross-section cases.) In addition, a Time Series Weight (variable #6) which corrects for panel attrition was constructed. This weight should be used in analyses which compare the 1994 NES to earlier unweighted National Election Study data collections. Analysts interested in developing their own nonresponse or post-stratification adjustment factors must request access to the necessary sample control data from the NES Board. CONSTRUCTION OF ANALYSIS WEIGHTS Nonresponse adjustment factors were constructed at the household level separately for Panel and new Cross-Section component cases. Nonresponse adjustment cells were formed by crossing PSU type (Self-representing, Nonself-representing MSA or non-MSA) by the nine Census divisions (New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West South Central, Mountain, and Pacific). A nonresponse factor equal to the inverse of the response rate in each cell was applied to the interview cases. In order to have a minimum of approximately 25 cases in each nonresponse adjustment cell, some cells were collapsed across Census Divisions in the same Census Region. Tables 8 and 9 show the nonresponse adjustment factors for the Panel and for new cross section respectively. An intermediate weight was constructed by multiplying the reciprocal of the probability of selection of the household by the nonresponse adjustment factor and by the number of eligible persons in the household [15]. This intermediate weight was used to produce a weighted sex by age category by Census Region table. The age categories used were: 18-44, 45-64, and 65+. Post- stratification factors were constructed to match the sample proportions in the 24 sex by age by Region cells to the July 1993 Census population projections (Current Population Reports, P25- 1111, Table 4). Table 10 shows the post-stratification factors for the 1994 NES Panel. Table 11 shows the post-stratification factors for the complete cross-section (both panel and new cross section cases.) The two final analysis weights were each centered to a mean of 1.0 so that the sum of the weights equals the number of respondents. [15] In constructing the analysis weight, a maximum of three eligible adults was allowed CONSTRUCTION OF TIME SERIES WEIGHT The 1994 NES Panel consists of 759 respondents originally selected for the 1992 Pre- Election Study. Of 1,126 1992 Pre-Election respondents, 1,005 were also respondents on the 1992 Post-Election Study. All 1,005 1992 Post-Election respondents were eligible for the 1994 NES Panel. In order to adjust for panel attrition, a Time Series Weight was constructed which adjusts the proportions for 30 demographic cells: Education (3) by Age Group (5) by Years of Residence (2) to the 1992 proportions. New 1994 cross-section cases have a Time Series weight of 1.0. In forming the panel attrition weight cells, the following definitions were used: Age Group: 17-24, 25-39, 40-64, 65-74, 75 or more. Education: Less than high school graduate, high school graduate, more than high school education. Years of Residence: Less than 3 years at current residence, 3 or more years at current residence. Table 8 Computation of Nonresponse Adjustment Weights -- Panel Nonresponse Adjustment PSU Type Census Region Response Rate Weight SR-MSA Middle Atlantic 74.6 1.340 East North Central 84.0 1.190 West North Central 92.9 1.077 South Atlantic 71.8 1.392 West South Central 75.0 1.333 Pacific 66.7 1.500 NSR-MSA New England & Middle Atlantic 70.8 1.413 East North Central 78.8 1.269 West North Central 71.4 1.400 South Atlantic 75.0 1.333 East South Central & West South Central 77.6 1.289 Mountain 92.8 1.078 Pacific 72.2 1.386 NSR-non MSA New England & Middle Atlantic 58.7 1.704 East North Central & West North Central 81.0 1.234 South Atlantic 82.7 1.210 East South Central & West South Central 81.8 1.222 Mountain & Pacific 66.7 1.50 Table 9 Computation of Nonresponse Adjustment Weights -- New Cross Section Nonresponse Adjustment PSU Type Census Region Response Rate Weight SR-MSA New England & Middle Atlantic 56.0 1.787 East North Central & West North Central 65.1 1.536 South Atlantic 72.0 1.389 West South Central 52.0 1.923 Pacific 48.4 2.067 NSR-MSA New England 44.0 2.273 Middle Atlantic 65.6 1.524 East North Central 68.6 1.458 West North Central 71.1 1.406 South Atlantic 82.7 1.209 East South Central 80.4 1.243 West South Central 82.5 1.212 Mountain 85.3 1.172 Pacific 71.3 1.402 NSR-non MSA New England & Middle Atlantic 72.5 1.379 East North Central & West North Central 87.8 1.139 South Atlantic 72.4 1.382 East South Central & West South Central 74.7 1.339 Mountain & Pacific 94.6 1.057 Table 10 1994 NES Panel Post-Stratification Weight Census Age Census Est. 94 Nat'l Post- Sex Region Group July 1, 1993 Election Strat. Study Weight Male Northeast 18-44 10,652,000 8,676,130 1.2277 45-64 4,867,000 5,246,960 0.9276 65+ 2,815,000 2,880,610 0.9772 Midwest 18-44 12,679,000 13,912,400 0.9113 45-64 5,626,000 6,229,820 0.9031 65+ 3,211,000 5,109,480 0.6284 South 18-44 18,797,000 16,207,280 1.1598 45-64 8,177,000 9,324,160 0.8770 65+ 4,574,000 3,440,280 1.3295 West 18-44 12,611,000 8,973,210 1.4054 45-64 4,908,000 2,573,920 1.9068 65+ 2,580,000 2,295,480 1.1239 Female Northeast 18-44 10,844,000 8,032,420 1.3500 45-64 5,338,000 3,233,370 1.6509 65+ 4,329,000 3,012,940 1.4368 Midwest 18-44 12,783,000 11,746,140 1.0883 45-64 5,990,000 6,753,230 0.8870 65+ 4,789,000 4,847,570 0.9879 South 18-44 18,950,000 17,179,490 1.1031 45-64 8,882,000 9,486,140 0.9363 65+ 6,753,000 5,970,310 1.1311 West 18-44 11,979,000 10,117,500 1.1840 45-64 5,077,000 3,416,980 1.4858 65+ 3,543,000 2,752,280 1.2873 Totals 190,754,000 171,418,100 Table 11 1994 NES Cross-section Post-Stratification Weight Census Age Census Est. 94 Nat'l Post- Sex Region Group July 1, 1993 Election Strat. Study Weight Male Northeast 18-44 10,652,000 7,780,520 1.3691 45-64 4,867,000 3,562,080 1.3663 65+ 2,815,000 2,807,870 1.0025 Midwest 18-44 12,679,000 13,282,300 0.9546 45-64 5,626,000 6,435,320 0.8742 65+ 3,211,000 3,968,760 0.8091 South 18-44 18,797,000 16,523,490 1.1376 45-64 8,177,000 8,230,300 0.9935 65+ 4,574,000 4,023,460 1.1368 West 18-44 12,611,000 9,120,530 1.3827 45-64 4,908,000 3,867,010 1.2692 65+ 2,580,000 2,414,850 1.0684 Female Northeast 18-44 10,844,000 8,160,800 1.3288 45-64 5,338,000 3,776,480 1.4135 65+ 4,329,000 4,027,800 1.0748 Midwest 18-44 12,783,000 11,222,760 1.1390 45-64 5,990,000 6,169,130 0.9710 65+ 4,789,000 4,186,580 1.1439 South 18-44 18,950,000 17,375,850 1.0906 45-64 8,882,000 7,917,440 1.1218 65+ 6,753,000 5,942,100 1.1365 West 18-44 11,979,000 10,060,750 1.1907 45-64 5,077,000 4,359,910 1.1645 65+ 3,543,000 3,088,300 1.1472 Totals 190,754,000 168,304,380 In order to obtain a minimum of approximately 15 cases per cell, some of the cells were collapsed across age groups. Table 12 shows the panel attrition factors for the 25 Years in Residence by Education Level by Age Group cells. Table 12 Panel Attrition (Time Series) Weight Factors Years of Panel Attrition Residence Education Level Age Group Weight Factor < 3 < HS Graduate 25-39 1.750 40+ 1.818 < HS Grad, HS Grad 17-24 1.428 HS Graduate 25-39 1.933 40+ 1.562 HS Graduate 17-24 1.375 25-39 1.376 40+ 1.326 3+ < HS Grad 17-39 1.308 40-64 1.423 65-74 1.583 75+ 2.125 HS Graduate 17-24 1.571 25-39 1.533 40-64 1.443 65-74 1.417 75+ 1.500 > HS Graduate 17-24 1.417 25-39 1.354 40-64 1.564 65-74 1.269 75+ 1.769 >> 1994 PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING ERROR ESTIMATION The 1994 NES is based on a stratified multi-stage area probability sample of United States households. Although smaller in scale, the NES sample design is very similar in it basic structure to the multi-stage designs used for major federal survey programs such as the Health Interview Survey (HIS) or the Current Population Survey (CPS). The survey literature refers to the NES, HIS and CPS samples as complex designs, a loosely-used term meant to denote the fact that the sample incorporates special design features such as stratification, clustering and differential selection probabilities (i.e., weighting) that analysts must consider in computing sampling errors for sample estimates of descriptive statistics and model parameters. This section of the 1994 NES sample design description focuses on sampling error estimation and construction of confidence intervals for survey estimates of descriptive statistics such as means, proportions, ratios, and coefficients for linear and logistic linear regression models. Standard analysis software systems such SAS, SPSS, OSIRIS assume simple random sampling (SRS) or equivalently independence of observations in computing standard errors for sample estimates. In general, the SRS assumption results in underestimation of variances of survey estimates of descriptive statistics and model parameters. Confidence intervals based on computed variances that assume independence of observations will be biased (generally too narrow) and design-based inferences will be affected accordingly. Sampling Error Computation Methods and Programs Over the past 50 years, advances in survey sampling theory have guided the development of a number of methods for correctly estimating variances from complex sample data sets. A number of sampling error programs which implement these complex sample variance estimation methods are available to NES data analysts. The two most common approaches to the estimation of sampling error for complex sample data are through the use of a Taylor Series Linearization of the estimator (and corresponding approximation to its variance) or through the use of resampling variance estimation procedures such as Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) or Jackknife Repeated Replication(JRR). New Bootstrap methods for variance estimation can also be included among the resampling approaches. See Rao and Wu (1988). 1. Linearization Approach If data are collected using a complex sample design with unequal size clusters, most statistics of interest will not be simple linear functions of the observed data. The objective of the linearization approach is to apply Taylor's method to derive an approximate form of the estimator that is linear in statistics for which variances and covariances can be directly estimated. Kish, 1965; Woodruff, 1971). Linearized variance approximations are derived for estimators of ratio means (Kish and Hess, 1959); finite population regression coefficients and correlation coefficients (Kish and Frankel, 1974); and many other non-linear statistics. Software packages such as SUDAAN and PC CARP (see below) use the Taylor Series linearization method to estimate standard errors for the coefficients of logistic regression models. In these programs, an iteratively reweighted least squares algorithm is used to compute maximum likelihood estimates of model parameters. At each step of the model fitting algorithm, a Taylor Series linearization approach is used to compute the variance/covariance matrix for the current iteration's parameter estimates (Binder, 1983). Available sampling error computation software that utilizes the Taylor Series linearization method includes: SUDAAN and PC SUDAAN, SUPERCARP AND PC CARP, CLUSTERS, OSIRIS PSALMS, OSIRIS PSRATIO, and OSIRIS PSTABLES. PC SUDAAN and PC CARP include procedures for estimation of sampling error both for descriptive statistics such as means, proportion, totals and for parameters of commonly used multivariate models (least squares regression, logistic regression). 2. Resampling Approaches In the mid-1940's, P.C. Mahalanobis (1946) outlined a simple replicated procedure for selecting probability samples that permits simple,unbiased estimation of variances. The practical difficulty with the simple replicated approach to design and variance estimation is that many replicates are needed to achieve stability of the variance estimator. Unfortunately, a design with many independent replicates must utilize a coarser stratification than alternative designs--to achieve stable variance estimates, sample precision must be sacrificed. Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR), Jackknife Repeated Replication (JRR) and the Bootstrap are alternative replication techniques that may be used for estimating sampling errors for statistics based on complex sample data. The BRR method is applicable to stratified designs in which two half-sample units (i.e., PSUs) are selected from each design stratum. The conventional "two PSU-per-stratum" design in the best theoretical example of such a design although in practice, collapsing of strata (Kalton, 1977) and random combination of units within strata are employed to restructure a sample design for BRR variance estimation. The half-sample codes prepared for the 1994 NES data set require the collapsing of nonself-representing strata and the randomized combination of selection units within self-representing (SR) strata. When full balancing of the half-sample assignments is employed (Wolter, 1985), BRR is the most computationally efficient of the replicated variance estimation techniques. The number of general purpose BRR sampling error estimation programs in the public domain is limited. The OSIRIS REPERR program includes the option for BRR estimation of sampling errors for least squares regression coefficients and correlation statistics. Research organizations such as Westat, Inc. and the National Center for Health Statistics have developed general purpose programs for BRR estimation of standard errors. Another option is to use SAS or SPSS Macro facilities to implement the relatively simple BRR algorithm. The necessary computation formulas and Hadamard matrices to define the half-sample replicates are available in Wolter (1985). With improvements in computational flexibility and speed, jackknife (JRR) and bootstrap methods for sampling error estimation and inference have become more common (Rao and Wu, 1988 ). Few general purpose programs for jackknife estimation of variances are available to analysts. OSIRIS REPERR has a JRR module for estimation of standard errors for regression and correlation statistics. Other stand alone programs may also be available in the general survey research community. Like BRR, the algorithm for JRR is relatively easy to program using SAS, SPSS or S-Plus macro facilities. BRR and JRR are variance estimation techniques, each designed to minimize the number of "resamplings" needed to compute the variance estimate. In theory, the bootstrap is not simply a tool for variance estimation but an approach to actual inference for statistics. In practice, the bootstrap is implemented by resampling (with replacement) from the observed sample units. To ensure that the full complexity of the design is reflected , the selection of each bootstrap reflects the full complexity of the stratification,clustering and weighting that is present in the original sample design. A large number of bootstrap samples are selected and the statistic of interest is computed for each. The empirical distribution of the estimate that results from the large set of bootstrap samples can then be used to a variance estimate and a support interval for inference about the population statistic of interest. In most practical survey analysis problems, the JRR and Bootstrap methods should yield similar results. Most survey analysts should choose JRR due to its computational efficiency. NES data analysts interested in the bootstrap technique are referred to LePage and Billard (1992) for additional reading and a bibliography for the general literature on this topic. One aspect of BRR, JRR and bootstrap variance estimation that is often pushed aside in practice is the treatment of analysis weights. In theory, when a resampling occurs (i.e., a BRR half sample is formed), the analysis weights should be recomputed based only on the selection probabilities, nonresponse characteristics and post-stratification outcomes for the units included in the resample. This is the correct way of performing resampling variance estimation; however, in practice acceptable estimates can be obtained through use of the weights as they are provided on the public use data set. Sampling Error Computation Models Regardless of whether linearization or a resampling approach is used, estimation of variances for complex sample survey estimates requires the specification of a sampling error computation model. NES data analysts who are interested in performing sampling error computations should be aware that the estimation programs identified in the preceding section assume a specific sampling error computation model and will require special sampling error codes. Individual records in the analysis data set must be assigned sampling error codes which identify to the programs the complex structure of the sample (stratification, clustering) and are compatible with the computation algorithms of the various programs. To facilitate the computation of sampling error for statistics based on 1994 NES data, design-specific sampling error codes will be routinely included in all public-use versions of the data set. Although minor recoding may be required to conform to the input requirements of the individual programs,the sampling error codes that are provided should enable analysts to conduct either Taylor Series or Replicated estimation of sampling errors for survey statistics. Table 13 defines the sampling error coding system for 1994 NES sample cases. Two sampling error code variables are defined for each case based on the sample design primary stage unit (PSU) and area segment in which the sample household is located. Sampling Error Stratum Code (Variable #63). The Sampling Error Computation Stratum Code is the variable which defines the sampling error computation strata for all sampling error analysis of the NES data. With the exception of the New York, Los Angeles and Chicago MSAs, each self-representing (SR) design stratum is represented by one sampling error computation stratum. Due to their population size, two sampling error computation strata are defined for each of the three largest MSAs. Pairs of similar nonself-representing (NSR) primary stage design strata are "collapsed" (Kalton, 1977) to create NSR sampling error computation strata. The SRC National Sample design uses Controlled selection and a "one-per-stratum" PSU allocation are used to select the primary stage of the 1994 NES national sample. The purpose in using Controlled Selection and the "one-per-stratum" sample allocation is to reduce the between-PSU component of sampling variation relative to a"two-per-stratum" primary stage design. Despite the expected improvement in sample precision, a drawback of the "one-per- stratum" design is that two or more sample selection strata must be collapsed or combined to form a sampling error computation stratum. Variances are then estimated under the assumption that a multiple PSU per stratum design was actually used for primary stage selection. The expected consequence of collapsing design strata into sampling error computation strata is the overestimation of the true sampling error; that is, the sampling error computation model defined by the codes contained in Table 13 will yield estimates of sampling errors which in expectation will be slightly greater than the true sampling error of the statistic of interest. SECU - Stratum-specific Sampling Error Computation Unit code (Variable #64) is a half sample code for analysis of sampling error using the BRR method or approximate "two-per-stratum" Taylor Series method (Kish and Hess,1959). Within the SR sampling error strata, the SECU half sample units are created by dividing sample cases into random halves, SECU=1 and SECU=2. The assignment of cases to half-samples is designed to preserve the stratification and second stage clustering properties of the sample within an SR stratum. Sample cases are assigned to SECU half samples based on the area segment in which they were selected. For this assignment, sample cases were placed in original stratification order (area segment number order) and beginning with a random start entire area segment clusters were systematically assigned to either SECU=1 or SECU=2. In the general case of nonself-representing (NSR) strata, the half sample units are defined according to the PSU to which the respondent was assigned at sample selection. That is, the half samples for each NSR sampling error computation stratum bear a one-to-one correspondence to the sample design NSR PSUs. The particular sample coding provided on the NES public use data set is consistent with the "ultimate cluster" approach to complex sample variance estimation (Kish, 1965; Kalton, 1977). Individual stratum, PSU and segment code variables may be needed by NES analysts interested in components of variance analysis or estimation of hierarchical models in which PSU-level and neighborhood-level effects are explicitly estimated. Table 13 shows the sampling error stratum and SECU codes to be used for the paired selection model for sampling error computations for any 1994 NES analyses; the same codes can be used when using the combined cross-section/panel data or when using either panel or cross- section data separately. The 42 strata reflect the two-thirds National Sample design used in 1994. It can be seen from this table that the three-digit 1994 SE code is comprised of: first the two-digit SE Stratum code followed by the one-digit SECU code. Table 13. 1994 National Election Study Sampling Error Codes Sampling Error SECU Code Segment Segment Stratum Code (Half Sample) PSU Numbers Numbers Number Cross- Panel Section 01 1 501 103 119 135 103 103 103 2 501 107 123 139 123 02 1 501 111 127 143 111 127 143 2 501 115 131 148 131 148 03 1 502 110 123 136 136 2 502 101 114 126 114 04 1 502 104 117 129 117 129 2 502 107 120 133 120 05 1 503 112 129 112 129 2 503 117 134 117 134 06 1 503 103 120 103 120 2 503 107 125 107 125 07 1 504 102 110 117 102 110 117 2 504 106 113 121 106 113 121 08 1 505 105 112 119 105 112 119 2 505 101 108 115 101 108 115 09 1 506 104 110 116 104 110 116 2 506 101 107 113 107 113 10 1 507 105 111 115 105 111 115 2 507 103 107 113 103 107 113 11 1 508 101 107 110 101 107 110 2 508 103 109 114 103 109 114 12 1 509 104 109 114 2 509 101 107 111 13 1 510 105 111 2 510 101 107 14 1 511 105 111 105 111 2 511 102 108 102 108 15 1 512 102 108 2 512 105 111 Sampling Error SECU Code Segment Segment Stratum Code (Half Sample) PSU Numbers Numbers Number Cross- Panel Section 16 1 513 101 107 2 513 104 110 17 1 514 104 110 2 514 101 107 18 1 515 105 111 105 111 2 515 102 108 102 108 19 1 516 102 108 102 108 2 516 105 111 105 111 20 1 517 101 103 105 105 111 107 109 111 2 518 101 103 105 101 103 105 107 109 111 107 109 111 21 1 521 103 105 107 103 109 109 111 2 523 103 105 107 105 111 109 111 22 1 524 102 104 106 102 108 108 110 112 2 534 102 104 106 102 104 106 108 110 112 108 110 112 23 1 526 101 103 105 105 111 107 109 111 2 527 101 103 105 103 109 107 109 111 24 1 528 102 104 106 102 104 106 108 110 112 108 110 112 2 529 102 104 106 106 112 108 110 112 25 1 531 102 104 106 106 112 108 110 112 2 532 102 104 106 104 110 108 110 112 26 1 533 102 104 106 106 112 108 110 112 2 547 101 103 105 101 107 107 109 111 Sampling Error SECU Code Segment Segment Stratum Code (Half Sample) PSU Numbers Numbers Number Cross- Panel Section 27 1 536 101 103 105 105 111 107 109 111 2 539 101 103 105 105 111 107 109 111 28 1 540 101 103 105 109 107 109 111 2 542 102 104 106 102 104 106 108 110 112 108 110 112 29 1 543 102 104 106 104 106 108 110 112 2 545 103 105 107 101 103 105 109 111 30 1 544 101 103 105 103 109 107 109 111 2 476 001 004 006 001 012 007 010 012 31 1 549 101 103 105 103 109 107 109 111 2 550 103 105 105 103 109 107 109 111 32 1 553 102 104 106 106 112 108 110 112 2 555 101 103 105 105 111 107 109 111 33 1 556 101 105 107 101 107 109 111 2 557 102 104 106 102 104 106 108 110 112 108 110 112 34 1 558 102 104 106 102 108 108 110 112 2 559 101 103 105 105 111 107 109 111 35 1 560 104 108 112 104 108 112 2 560 102 106 110 102 106 110 36 1 463 001 003 005 002 008 007 009 011 2 464 002 004 005 001 004 005 009 010 012 009 011 012 Sampling Error SECU Code Segment Segment Stratum Code (Half Sample) PSU Numbers Numbers Number Cross- Panel Section 37 1 465 001 003 005 005 011 007 009 011 2 466 002 004 005 001 004 008 008 010 012 010 011 012 38 1 468 001 002 006 006 012 007 008 011 2 470 002 003 005 002 012 007 011 012 39 1 473 001 005 008 006 012 009 011 012 008 011 2 474 002 004 007 001 004 007 008 011 012 008 011 40 1 477 001 003 005 006 012 007 010 012 2 478 002 005 006 005 010 008 010 012 41 1 480 002 006 007 002 005 007 008 010 012 010 011 2 481 001 004 005 001 008 007 009 011 42 1 482 002 004 005 007 007 009 012 2 484 001 004 006 004 011 009 011 012 Generalized Sampling Error Results for the 1994 NES To assist NES analysts, the OSIRIS PSALMS program was used to compute sampling errors for a wide-ranging example set of means and proportions estimated from the 1988 NES Pre-election Survey data set [16]. For each estimate, sampling errors were computed for the total sample and for twenty demographic and political affiliation subclasses of the 1988 NES Pre-Election Survey sample. The results of these sampling error computations were then summarized and translated into the general usage sampling error table provided in Table 14. [16] The design effects from the 1988 NES are expected to be similar to those for the 1994 NES. Sampling errors for the 1994 NES have not been run. Incorporating the pattern of "design effects" observed in the extensive set of example computations, Table 14 provides approximate standard errors for percentage estimates based on the 1988 NES. To use the table, examine the column heading to find the percentage value which best approximates the value of the estimated percentage that is of interest [17]. Next, locate the approximate sample size base (denominator for the proportion) in the left-hand row margin of the table. To find the approximate standard error of a percentage estimate, simply cross-reference the appropriate column (percentage) and row (sample size base). Note: the tabulated values represent approximately one standard error for the percentage estimate. To construct an approximate confidence interval, the analyst should apply the appropriate critical point from the "z" distribution (e.g., z=1.96 for a two-sided 95% confidence interval half-width). Furthermore, the approximate standard errors in the table apply only to single point estimates of percentages not to the difference between two percentage estimates. [17] The standard error of a percentage is a systematic function with its maximum centered at=50%; i.e., the standard error pf p=40% and p=60% estimates are equal. The generalized variance results presented in Table 14 are a useful tool for initial, cursory examination of the NES survey results. For more in depth analysis and reporting of critical estimates, analysts are encouraged to compute exact estimates of standard errors using the appropriate choice of a sampling error program and computation model. Table 14: Generalized Variance Table. 1994 NES Post-Election Survey. 1994 APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR PERCENTAGES For percentage estimates near: Sample n 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% or 60% or 70% or 80% or 90% The approximate standard error of the percentage is: 100 5.406 5.297 4.955 4.325 3.244 200 3.853 3.775 3.531 3.082 2.312 300 3.170 3.106 2.905 2.536 1.902 400 2.766 2.710 2.535 2.213 1.660 500 2.492 2.442 2.284 1.994 1.495 750 2.072 2.030 1.899 1.658 1.243 1000 1.826 1.789 1.674 1.461 1.096 1250 1.661 1.628 1.523 1.329 0.997 1500 1.542 1.511 1.413 1.233 0.925 1800 1.434 1.405 1.315 1.147 0.861 References Binder, D.A. (1983), "On the variances of asymptotitically normal estimators from complex surveys," International Statistical Review, Vol. 51, pp. 279-292. Kalton, G. (1977), "Practical methods for estimating survey sampling errors," Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, Vol 47, 3, pp. 495-514. Kish, L. (1965), Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kish, L., & Frankel, M.R. (1974), "Inference from complex samples," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, Vol. 36, pp. 1-37. Kish, L., & Hess, I. (1959), "On variances of ratios and their differences in multi-stage samples," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, pp. 416-446. LePage, R., & Billard, L. (1992), Exploring the Limits of Bootstrap. New York: John Wiley Sons, Inc. Mahalanobis, P.C. (1946), "Recent experiments in statistical sampling at the Indian Statistical Institute," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol 109, pp. 325-378. Rao, J.N.K & Wu, C.F.J. (1988.), "Resampling inference with complex sample data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, pp. 231-239. Wolter, K.M. (1985 ). Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York: Springer -Verlag. Woodruff, R.S. (1971), "A simple method for approximating the variance of a complicated estimate," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 66, pp. 411-414. >> SAMPLE DESIGN OF THE 1992 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION STUDY STUDY POPULATION The study population for the 1992 National Pre/Post Election Study (NES) is defined to include all United States citizens of voting age on or before the 1992 Election Day. Eligible citizens must have resided in housing units, other than on military reservations, in the forty-eight coterminous states. This definition excludes persons living in Alaska or Hawaii and requires eligible persons to have been both a United States citizen and eighteen years of age on or before the 3rd of November 1992. MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN The 1992 NES is based on a multi-stage area probability sample selected from the Survey Research Center's (SRC) National Sample design. Identification of the 1992 NES sample respondents was conducted using a four stage sampling process--a primary stage sampling of U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and counties, followed by a second stage sampling of area segments, a third stage sampling of housing units within sampled area segments and concluding with the random selection of a single respondent from selected housing units. A detailed documentation of the SRC National Sample is provided in the SRC publication titled, 1980 SRC National Sample: Design and Development. Primary Stage Selection The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSUs), which depending on the sample stratum are either MSAs, single counties or groupings of small counties, is based on the county-level 1980 Census Reports of Population and Housing. Primary stage units were assigned to 84 explicit strata based on MSA/Non-MSA status, PSU size, and geographic location. Sixteen of the 84 strata contain only a single self-representing PSU, each of which is included with certainty in the primary stage of sample selection. The remaining 68 nonself-representing strata contain more than one PSU. From each of these nonself-representing strata, one PSU was sampled with probability proportionate to its size (PPS) measured in 1980 occupied housing units. The full SRC National Sample of 84 primary stage selections was designed to be optimal for surveys roughly two to three times the size of the 1992 NES. To permit the flexibility needed for optimal design of smaller survey samples, the primary stage of the SRC National Sample can be readily partitioned into smaller subsamples of PSUs. Each of the partitions represents a stratified subselection from the full 84 PSU design. Since the 1992 NES desired comparison of data over time from 1990 NES respondents, as well as an expanded representative sample of eligible 1992 respondents, a combined panel/cross-section sample was designed for the 1992 Pre/Post-Election Study. The Panel portion of the 1992 sample was selected from the original 1990 NES sample which, at the Primary stage had been selected from the "one-half" partition of the 1980 SRC National Sample. The"A" one-half sample of the 1980 National Sample design includes 11 of the 16 self-representing MSA PSUs and a stratified subsampling of 34 (of the 68) nonself-representing PSUs of the SRC National Sample. The Panel portion of the 1992 NES is designed to allow longitudinal analysis of individual change since the panel cases follow the original proportionate distribution to the 1990 "A" one-half sample areas. The 1992 NES Cross-Section encompasses both the panel cases and a new selection of cases from the two-thirds partition of the 1980 National Sample (that is the "A" plus the "B1" PSUs). The two-thirds 1980 National Sample design includes all 16 self-representing PSUs and 11 additional nonself-representing PSUs for a total of 45 (of 68) nonself-representing PSUs. The additional cases were added to the 1992 NES to supplement the Panel selections such that when the Panel and new Cross-section selections are combined for analysis a representative cross-section of the study population has been maintained. Table 9 identifies the PSUs for the 1992 National Election Study by MSA status and Region. The PSUs in the Panel portion of the sample design are shown in standard print on this table while those PSUs added for the two-thirds Cross-section are shown in italics. Table 9: PSUs in the 1992 NES Pre- and Post-Election Survey By: MSA Status and Region. REGION Self-representing MSAs Northeast New York, NY-NJ Philadelphia, PA-NJ Boston, MA* Nassau-Suffolk, NY Pittsburgh, PA* North Chicago, IL Central Detroit, MI St. Louis, MO* Minneapolis, MN-WI South Washington, DC-MD-VA Dallas-Ft Worth, TX Houston, TX* Baltimore, MD* Atlanta, GA West Los Angeles, CA San Francisco, CA REGION Nonself-representing MSAs Northeast Buffalo, NY Newark, NJ Haven, CT Atlantic City, NJ Manchester, NH North Milwaukee, WI Central Dayton, OH Kansas City, MO-KS Des Moines, IA Grand Rapids, MI Fort Wayne, IN Steubenville, OH Saginaw, MI South Birmingham, AL Columbus, GA-AL Miami, FL Jacksonville, FL Lakeland, FL McAllen, TX Waco, TX Wheeling, WV Knoxville, TN Richmond, VA West Seattle, WA Denver, CO Anaheim, CA Riverside, CA Fresno, CA Eugene, OR Phoenix, AZ REGION Non-MSAs Northeast Schuyler, NY Gardner, MA North Sanilac, MI Central Decatur, IN Phillips, KS/Saline, NE Mower, MN South Bulloch, GA Sabine, LA Hale, TX Monroe, AR/Ashley, AR Bedford, TN Montgomery, VA Robeson, NC West ElDorado-Alpine, CA Carbon, WY NOTE: The PSU's marked with an asterisk are Self-Representing for sample designs which use the two-thirds or larger portion of the sample (i.e., in this case, the combined cross-section and panel design). For the half-sample design (i.e., in this case, the panel portion alone) only 6 of the 16 Self-Representing areas remain Self-Representing. The other ten Self-Representing PSU's are paired and only five are used in the half-sample design, each representing both itself and the PSU it is paired with. Second Stage Selection of Area Segments The second stage of the 1980 National Sample was selected directly from computerized files that were prepared from the 1980[8] Census summary tape file series (STF1-B). The designated second-stage sampling units (SSUs), termed "area segments", are comprised of census blocks in the metropolitan primary areas and enumeration districts (EDs) in the rural areas of both non-MSA and MSA primary areas. Each SSU block, block combination or enumeration district was assigned a measure of size equal to the total 1980 occupied housing unit count for the area (minimum = 50). Second stage sampling of area segments was performed with probabilities proportionate to the assigned measures of size. A three-step process of ordering the SSUs within the primary areas produced an implicit stratification of the area segments in the second stage sampling frame, stratified at the county level by geographic location and population. Area segments were stratified within county at the Minor Civil Division (MCD) level by size and income, and at the block and ED level by location within the MCD or county. (For details, refer to the SRC publication, 1980 NATIONAL SAMPLE: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.) Systematic PPS sampling was used to select the area segments from the second stage sampling frame for each county. In the self-representing (SR) PSUs the number of sample area segments varied in proportion to the size of the primary stage unit, from a high of 12 Cross-section and 12 Panel area segments in the SR New York MSA, 6 Cross-section segments and 5 Panel segments in the San Francisco MSA, to a low of 4 Cross-section and no Panel area segments in the smaller SR PSUs such as Minneapolis and Atlanta MSAs. Most Nonself-representing (NSR) half-sample (A) PSUs were represented by 2 Cross-section and 6 Panel area segments; most of the eleven other (B1) NSR PSUs had 6 Cross-section area segments (and, of course, no Panel segments). A total of 487 area segments were selected, 206 Cross-section and 281 Panel segments, 151 in the sixteen self-representing PSUs and 336 in the nonself-representing PSUs as shown in Table 10. Table 10: Number of Cross-Section and Panel Area Segments in the 1992 NES Sample Showing PSU Name, National-Sample Stratum and Partition, and MSA Status 1980 1980 National Sample # of 1992 NES # of 1992 NES N. Samp PSU Name Cross-section Panel Sample PSU# Sample Segs. Segments Six Largest Self-representing PSUs 1 A New York, NY-NJ 12 12 2 A Los Angeles, CA 12 9 3 A Chicago, IL 8 8 4 A Philadelphia, PA-NJ 6 6 5 A Detroit, MI 6 6 6 A San Francisco, CA 6 5 Ten Remaining Self-representing PSUs 7 B1 Washington, DC-MD-VA 6 0 8 B1 Dallas-Ft Worth, TX 6 0 9 A Houston, TX 0 7 10 A Boston, MA 0 6 11 B1 Nassau-Suffolk, NY 4 0 12 A St Louis, MO-IL 0 6 13 A Pittsburgh, PA 0 6 14 A Baltimore, MD 0 6 15 B1 Minneapolis, MN-WI 4 0 16 B1 Atlanta, GA 4 0 Nonself-representing MSAs: Northeast 17 A Buffalo, NY 2 6 18 B1 Newark, NJ 6 0 21 A New Haven, CT 2 6 23 A Atlantic City, NJ 2 6 24 A Manchester, NH 2 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: North Central 26 A Milwaukee, WI 2 6 27 A Dayton, OH 2 6 28 B1 Kansas City, MO-KS 6 0 29 A Des Moines, IA 2 6 31 A Grand Rapids, MI 2 6 32 A Fort Wayne, IN 2 6 33 A Steubenville, OH-WV 2 6 34 B1 Saginaw, MI 6 0 Nonself-representing MSAs: South 36 A Birmingham, AL 2 6 39 A Columbus, GA-AL 2 6 40 A Miami, FL 2 6 42 B1 Jacksonville, FL 6 0 43 A Lakeland, FL 2 6 44 A McAllen, TX 2 6 45 B1 Waco, TX 6 0 47 A Wheeling, WV-OH 2 6 49 A Knoxville, TN 2 6 50 A Richmond, VA 2 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: West 53 A Seattle, WA 2 6 55 A Denver, CO 2 6 56 A Anaheim, CA 2 6 57 B1 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 6 0 58 A Fresno, CA 2 6 59 A Eugene, OR 2 6 60 B1 Phoenix, AZ 6 0 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: Northeast 63 A Schuyler, NY 2 6 64 B1 Gardner, MA 6 0 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: North Central 65 A Sanilac, MI 2 6 66 B1 Decatur, IN 6 0 68 A Phillips, KS/ ** 6 Saline, NE 2 ** 70 A Mower, MN 2 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: South 73 A Bulloch, GA 2 6 74 B1 Sabine, LA 5 0 76 A Hale, TX 2 6 77 A Monroe, AR/ ** 6 Ashley, AR 2 ** 78 A Bedford, TN 2 6 80 B1 Montgomery, VA 5 0 81 A Robeson, NC 2 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: West 82 A ElDorado-Alpine, CA 2 6 84 A Carbon, WY 2 6 Total 206 281 ** In two Non-SMSA National Sample strata (68 and 77) the 1980 materials from which the Panel area segments had been selected was exhausted (i.e., there were insufficient remaining SSUs from which to select new Cross-section area segments), so a new Primary selection had to be made from those two strata. Therefore, the Panel area segments for stratum 68 are from PSU Phillips County, KS, and the Cross-section area segments are from Saline County, NE; the Panel area segments for stratum 77 are from PSU Monroe County, AR, and the Cross-section area segments are from Ashley County, AR. Although 281 segments were used in the 1990 NES, only 272 Panel segments appear in the 1992 NES Panel. The difference is due to some segments used in 1990 not having any interviews completed in 1990 and, therefore, not becoming part of the 1992 Panel. Third Stage Selection of Housing Units For each area segment selected in the second sampling stage, a listing was made of all housing units located within the physical boundaries of the segment. For segments with a very large number of expected housing units, all housing units in a subselected part of the segment were listed. The final equal probability sample of housing units for the 1992 NES was systematically selected from the housing unit listings for the sampled area segments. The overall probability of selection for 1992 NES Cross-Section households was f=.00003988 or .3988 in 10,000. The equal probability sample of households was achieved for the combined Cross-Section/Panel design by using the standard multi-stage sampling technique of setting the sampling rate for selecting housing units within area segments to be inversely proportional to the PPS probabilities (see above) used to select the PSU and area segment. Five 1992 Panel replicates were designated for the entire "frame" of households in which a complete interview was obtained in the 1990 NES study (2000 - 11 partial interviews = 1989 1990 interview HUs). The original 1990 sample lines had been selected from the National Sample ("A" or "half-sample" PSUs) to be inversely proportional to the PPS probabilities used to select the area segments as described in the previous paragraph. The new Cross-Section component of the 1992 NES sample design was disproportionately allocated to the "B1" PSUs to supplement the Panel cases such that when cross-sectional analysis was undertaken, combining new cross-section cases with panel cases would yield an equal probability sample of households. The distribution of the combined sample would be that required by the two-thirds design. Fourth Stage Respondent Selection Within each sampled new cross-section housing unit, the SRC interviewer prepared a complete listing of all eligible household members. Using an objective procedure described by Kish (1949)[9] a single respondent was then selected at random to be interviewed. Regardless of circumstances, no substitutions were permitted for the designated respondent. This technique had also been used in 1990 to select the original Panel respondents. In 1992 the same Panel respondent (R) was sought for interview as had been interviewed in 1990. SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The targeted completed interview sample size for the 1992 NES Pre/Post-Election Survey was n = 2,057 total cases. In the original sample size computation, the following assumptions were made for the cross-section component of the sample: response rate for the pre-election interview = .72 and of these 95% were assumed to be available and cooperative for the post-election interview, combined occupancy/eligibility rate = .83. These assumptions were derived from survey experience in the 1986 NES Post Election Survey[10]. The assumptions made for the panel component were: .913 recontact rate and .75 response rate for the pre-election interview. The same .95 response rate for the post-election interview was assumed for both the panel and the cross-section component. To most closely tailor the field effort to the sample field experience during this study, both parts of the selected sample had five replicates designated. Replicates 1 and 2 were considered the "base sample", certain to be released. 55% of this base was designated as Replicate 1 to be released September 1, 1992 and 45% designated as Replicate 2 to be released October 1, 1992. The other three replicates were designated "Reserve" replicates, one or more to be released for field work October 1, 1992 at the discretion of NES study staff. Replicate 3 (Reserve replicate 1) was never, in fact, released. Replicates 4 and 5 (Reserve replicates 2 and 3) were released with Base sample replicate 2 on October 1, 1992. Each replicate is a proper subsample of the NES sample. A subsampling of one-third of selected addresses was made in certain cases when selected lines were determined to be within locked buildings, in gated subdivisions or in areas which posed a danger to interviewing staff. This allowed concentration of greater field effort in these circumstances to obtain at least some interviews. In cases where this was done, appropriate weighting of the results will be used to compensate. (This is not reflected in the following tables however). Table 11 provides a full description of the original sample design specifications applied to the Base Sample and also indicates the number of HU listings assigned to each replicate. As stated above, Replicates 1 and 2 constitute the Base Sample; Replicates 3, 4 and 5 are reserve replicates. Replicate 3 was, in fact, never released for field work. Table 11: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions 1992 National Pre/Post-Election Survey Cross-Section Component (Supplemental) Original Specifications and Assumptions Completed Post/ interview 1,000 Contact/Response Rate .95 Completed Pre/ interview 1,052 Response Rate .72 Eligible sample households 1,462 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate[11] .83 Panel Recontact Rate Sample HU listings Replicates 1 and 2 1,760 Replicate 1 (incl above)[12] 961 Replicate 2 (incl above)[13] 799 Replicate 3 (Reserve)[14] 200 Replicate 4 (Reserve) 75 Replicate 5 (Reserve) 51 Total Sample lines 2,086 Panel Component Total Original Specifications and Assumptions Completed Post/ interview 1,057 2,057 Contact/Response Rate .95 Completed Pre/ interview 1,112 2,164 Response Rate[15] .75 Eligible sample households 1,483 2,945 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate[11] Panel Recontact Rate .913 Sample HU listings Replicates 1 and 2 1,625 3,385 Replicate 1 (incl above)[12] 900 Replicate 2 (incl above)[13] 725 Replicate 3 (Reserve)[14] 208 Replicate 4 (Reserve) 104 Replicate 5 (Reserve) 52 Total Sample lines 1,989[16] SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES Table 12 compares the original sample design specifications and assumptions for the new Cross-Section Component of the 1992 NES as applied to the Base Sample (as in Table 11) and as applied to the actually released sample (Replicates 1, 2, 4 and 5) to the actual outcome for that component. Table 13 makes a similar comparison for the Panel Component of the 1992 NES Sample and Table 14 presents a summary of the figures for the combined Cross-Section/Panel Sample. The response rates which appear in these tables are calculated using both complete and partial (short-form) interviews. An alternative response rate which excludes short-form interviews is described in "Response Rates", above. Table 12: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the Cross-Section Component of the 1992 National Pre/Post-Election Survey Original Original S & A Specifications Applied to & Assumptions Actual Release (Reps. 1 & 2) (Reps. 1,2,4 & 5) Completed Post/Interviews 1,000 1,103 Contact/Response Rate .95 .95 Released for Recontact 1,052 1,161 Completed Pre/ Interviews 1,052 1,161 Response Rate .72 .72 Eligible Sample Households 1,462 1,613 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate[17] .83 .83 Subsampling for dangerous/ locked areas -- -- Sample HU listings 1,760 1,943 Sample growth from update[18] -- 1.03 Selected Sample lines 1,760 1,886 Actual Outcome Completed Post/Interviews 1,005 Contact/Response Rate .89 Released for Recontact 1,126 Completed Pre/ Interviews 1,126 Response Rate .74 Eligible Sample Households 1,522 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate .80 1,900 Subsampling for dangerous/ locked areas .99[19] Sample HU listings 1,923 Sample growth from update 1.02 Selected Sample lines 1,886 Table 13: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the Panel Component of the 1992 National Pre/Post-Election Survey Original Original S & A Specifications Applied to & Assumptions Actual Release (Reps 1 & 2) (Reps 1,2,4 & 5) Completed Post/ Interviews 1,057 1,158 Contact/Response Rate .95 .95 Released for Recontact 1,112 1,219 Completed Pre/ Interviews 1,112 1,219 Response Rate .75[20] .75 Eligible Sample Households 1,483 1,626 Panel Recontact Rate .913 .913 Sample HU listings Released 1,625 1,781 Total Panel cases 1,989 1,989 Actual Outcome Completed Post/ Interviews 1,250 Contact/Response Rate .92 Released for Recontact 1,361 Completed Pre/ Interviews 1,361 Response Rate .78 Eligible Sample Households 1,752 Panel Recontact Rate .979 Sample HU listings Released 1,789 Total Panel cases 1,989 Table 14: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the Combined Cross-Section/Panel Sample. 1992 National Pre/Post-Election Survey Original Original S & A Specifications Applied to & Assumptions Actual Release (Reps. 1 & 2) (Reps. 1,2,4 & 5) Completed Post/ Interviews 2,057 2,261 Released for Recontact 2,164 2,380 Completed Pre/ Interviews 2,164 2,380 Eligible Sample Households 2,945 3,239 Total Sample HU listings 3,385[21] 3,724 Growth from update of Cross-Section component 1.015 Selected Sample lines 3,667 Actual Outcome Completed Post/ Interviews 2,255 Released for Recontact 2,487 Completed Pre/ Interviews 2,487 Eligible Sample Households 3,274 Total Sample HU listings 3,712 In comparing the second column of Table 12 with the third column, it can be seen that, for the 1992 Cross-Section component, the sample growth from the update procedure was slightly less than expected; this was perhaps due to the fact that many of the new cross-section segments had been listed within the year previous to field dates for the 1992 NES study. The original sample design specifications also overestimated the actual occupancy/eligibility rates resulting in 91 fewer eligible HUs than estimated. However, since the actual response rate was higher than estimated, completed pre-election interviews fell only 35 short of the number estimated. The assumptions for response rate and occupancy/eligibility rate were based on the 1986 NES field experience for a probability sample based on the entire two-thirds design of the National Sample. The actual response rate for the 1992 cross-section component (.74), as well as the occupancy/eligibility rate very likely reflects the disproportionate allocation of the new cross-section segments in the B1 areas of the National Sample which may well have different occupancy/eligibility and response rates than any overall past NES rates on which the original assumptions were based. The number of Post-election interviews obtained, 1,005, was closer to the target of 1000 interviews projected for the Base Sample alone than the 1,103 projected for the actual 1,886 sample lines released. For the Panel Component (see Table 13), both the Panel recontact rate and the response rate exceeded assumptions resulting in 142 more pre-election interviews than expected. A lower than assumed response rate for the post-election interview reduced the excess to 92 more post-election interviews than projected for the release of the Panel base sample plus replicates 4 and 5 (reserve replicates 2 and 3). The figures for the combined cross-section sample shown in Table 14 show completed pre-election interviews of 107 over expected. Due to lower than assumed response rate for the post-election interview, combined with lower cross-section and higher panel overall response and occupancy/eligibility rates, the final total number of post election interviews was 6 fewer than the projected outcome for the sample lines released. >> WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1992 NES DATA The area probability sample design for the 1992 NES results in an equal probability sample of U.S. households. However, within sample households a single adult respondent is chosen at random to be interviewed. Since the number of eligible adults may vary from one household to another, the random selection of a single adult introduces inequality into respondents' selection probabilities. In analysis, a respondent selection weight should be used to compensate for these unequal selection probabilities. The value of the respondent selection weight is exactly equal to the number of eligible adults in the household from which the random respondent was selected. The use of the respondent selection weight is strongly encouraged, despite past evaluations which have shown these weights to have little significant impact on the values of NES estimates of descriptive statistics. The Sampling Section has provided two final person level analysis weights which will incorporate sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification factors. One weight variable (#3009) is for use with Panel cases only; the other weight variable (#3008) is for the 1992 NES Cross-section (which includes both panel and new cross-section cases.) Analysts interested in developing their own nonresponse or post-stratification adjustment factors must request access to the necessary sample control data from the NES Board. CONSTRUCTION OF ANALYSIS WEIGHTS Nonresponse adjustment factors were constructed at the household level separately for Panel and new Cross-Section component cases. Nonresponse adjustment cells were formed by crossing PSU type (Self-representing, Nonself- representing MSA or non-MSA) by the nine Census divisions (New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West South Central, Mountain, and Pacific). A nonresponse factor equal to the inverse of the response rate in each cell was applied to the interview cases. In order to have a minimum of approximately 25 cases in each nonresponse adjustment cell, some cells were collapsed across Census divisions in the same Census region. An intermediate weight was constructed by multiplying the probability of selection of the household by the nonresponse adjustment factor by the number of eligible persons in the household[22]. This intermediate weight was used to produce a weighted sex by age category by Census Region table. The age categories used were: 18-44, 45-64, and 65+. Post-stratification factors were constructed to match the sample proportions in the 24 sex by age by Region cells to the July 1991 Census population totals (United States Department of Commerce News Public Information Office Press Release - CB92-93). The two final analysis weights were each centered to a mean of 1.0 so that the sum of the weights equals the number of respondents (1,359 for the 1990-92 Panel and 2,485 for the 1992 Cross-section). >> COMPARING THE 1992 NES TO PREVIOUS NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES Earlier National Election Studies data collections did not include weights to adjust for nonresponse and the unequal probability of selection at the household level. Thus, weighting the 1992 NES data by V3009 (for analysis of the Panel cases) or by V3008 (for combined analysis of the panel and new cross-section cases) produces estimates that are not strictly comparable to those obtained from previous National Election Studies that were not weighted to incorporate sampling, nonresponses and post-stratification factors. Analysis comparing data from the 1992 NES data to previous NES data collections should employ V7000. Because approximately half of the respondents to the 1992 NES were part of a panel first interviewed in 1990, to be comparable with previous NES cross-section data collections, the combined 1992 panel and new cross-section data must be weighted to correct for panel attrition and the aging of the panel respondents. Panel attrition is not uniform across demographic groups. Some respondents (the mobile and those with the least amount of formal education) are more susceptible to panel attrition. By definition, panel respondents are two years older than the cross-section respondents. And by definition, there are almost no 18 or 19 year-olds among the panel respondents interviewed in 1992 (because an 18 year-old in 1992 would have been 16 years-old in 1990 and ineligible for the 1990 study). Weighting of the panel respondents is necessary to ensure comparability with past NES data collections. V7000 corrects the combined panel and cross-section cases for the panel attrition and aging that occurred among the panel respondents. This weight should be used when comparing estimates made on the 1992 NES data to estimates made on previous (unweighted) NES data collections. V7000 does not appear in the April 1993 CPS Early Release Version of the 1992 National Election Study. CONSTRUCTION OF V7000 To construct this weight, panel respondents were classified by age (17-24, 25-39, 40- 64, 65-74, 75 and over), education (less than high school, high school diploma, and more than high school education), and mobility (whether or not the respondent had moved between 1990 and 1992). Cross-classification of these three variables produced a 30-celled table (5 x 3 x 2) for each of the following: (1) 1990 panel respondents who comprised the panel portion of the sample "universe" for the 1992 study (N=1769); and (2) panel respondents interviewed in 1992 (N=1359). The weight was constructed by dividing the value of each cell in the 1990 table (1) by the value of the corresponding cell in the 1992 table (2). (For example, 10.9 percent of the 1,769 1990 panel respondents were age 40-64/had more than high school education/ had not moved. In 1992, respondents in the cell defined by these same categories comprised 11.8 percent of the 1359 panel respondents interviewed. The case weight for this group of respondents is 10.9/11.8 = .9237.) In order to have a minimum of approximately 25 cases in each cell, some cells were collapsed. This procedure centers the weight variable V7000 so that it has a mean of 1.0 and the sum of the weights (2488) is approximately equal to the actual number of combined panel and cross-section respondents (2,485). Respondents who are part of the new cross-section have the value "1.0000" on V7000. >> SAMPLING ERRORS OF 1992 NES ESTIMATES SAMPLING ERROR CALCULATION PROGRAMS The probability sample design for the 1992 National Election Study permits the calculation of estimates of sampling error for survey statistics. For calculating sampling errors of statistics from complex sample surveys, the OSIRIS statistical analysis and data management software system offers the PSALMS and REPERR programs. PSALMS is a general purpose sampling error program which incorporates the Taylor Series approximation approach to the estimation of variances of ratios (including means, scale variables, indices, proportions) and their differences. REPERR is an OSIRIS program which incorporates algorithms for replicated approaches to variance estimation. Both Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) and Jackknife Repeated Replication (JRR) are available as program options. The current version of REPERR is best suited for estimating sampling errors and design effects for regression and correlation statistics. Sampling Error Codes and Calculation Model Estimation of variances for complex sample survey estimates requires a computation model. Individual data records must be assigned sampling error codes which reflect the complex structure of the sample and are compatible with the computation algorithms of the various programs. The sampling error codes for the 1992 NES are included as variables #3068 and #3069 in the ICPSR Public Use data set. The assigned sampling error codes are designed to facilitate sampling error computation according to a paired selection model for both Taylor Series approximation and Replication method programs. For the Panel Component segments, two sampling error (SE) codes have been included for analysis of 1992 data. For longitudinal analysis of Panel data alone, the original 1990 SE code should be used since this reflects the half-sample design of the 1990 NES sample. For any cross-sectional analysis, where Panel data is combined with new cross-section data, the 1992 SE code must be used. Table 15 provides a description of how individual sampling error code values for Panel only data are to be paired for sampling error computations. Thirty (30) pairs or strata of sampling error computation units (SECUs) are defined. Each SECU in a stratum pair includes cases assigned to a single sampling error code value. The exceptions are the second SECU in stratum 27 which is comprised of cases assigned sampling code values 36 AND 55 and the second SECU in stratum 29 which is comprised of cases with SECUs 61 AND 63. Table 15: 1992 Pre/Post-Election Survey: Panel-Only Analysis Paired Selection Model for Sampling Error Computations (1990 Sampling Error Codes - Variable #3069) Pair (SECU) (SECU) (Stratum) 1 of 2 2 of 2 Codes Codes 1 103 104 2 105 106 3 99 100 4 101 102 5 95 96 6 97 98 7 93 94 8 91 92 9 89 90 10 83 84 11 81 82 12 77 78 13 75 76 14 73 74 15 2 6 16 7 8 17 14 16 18 17 18 19 19 21 20 24 28 21 11 29 22 30 33 23 37 43 24 40 48 25 42 45 26 50 51 27 52 36 + 55 28 57 64 29 60 61 + 63 30 67 68 Table 16 shows the Strata and SECU codes to be used for the paired selection model for sampling error computations for any 1992 cross-sectional analyses using the combined cross-section/panel data. The 42 strata reflect the expanded 2/3rds National Sample design used in 1992. Table 16: 1992 Pre/Post-Election Survey: Cross-Section Analysis[23] Paired Selection Model for Sampling Error Computations (1992 Sampling Error Coded - Variable #3068) Pair (SECU) (SECU) (SE Stratum) 1 of 2 2 of 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 2 5 1 2 6 1 2 7 1 2 8 1 2 9 1 2 10 1 2 11 1 2 12 1 2 13 1 2 14 1 2 15 1 2 16 1 2 17 1 2 18 1 2 19 1 2 20 1 2 21 1 2 22 1 2 23 1 2 24 1 2 25 1 2 26 1 2 27 1 2 28 1 2 29 1 2 30 1 2 31 1 2 32 1 2 33 1 2 34 1 2 35 1 2 36 1 2 37 1 2 38 1 2 39 1 2 40 1 2 41 1 2 42 1 2 It can be seen from this table that the three-digit 1992 SE code is comprised of: first the two-digit SE Stratum code followed by the one-digit SECU code. Generalized Sampling Error Results for the 1992 NES To assist NES analysts, the OSIRIS PSALMS program was used to compute sampling errors for a wide-ranging example set of means and proportions estimated from the 1988 NES Pre-election Survey data set[24]. For each estimate, sampling errors were computed for the total sample and for fifteen demographic and political affiliation subclasses of the 1988 NES Pre-Election Survey sample. The results of these sampling error computations were then summarized and translated into the general usage sampling error table provided in Table 17. Incorporating the pattern of "design effects" observed in the extensive set of example computations, Table 17 provides approximate standard errors for percentage estimates based on the 1988 NES. To use the table, examine the column heading to find the percentage value which best approximates the value of the estimated percentage that is of interest[25]. Next, locate the approximate sample size base (denominator for the proportion) in the left-hand row margin of the table. To find the approximate standard error of a percentage estimate, simply cross-reference the appropriate column (percentage) and row (sample size base). Note: the tabulated values represent approximately one standard error for the percentage estimate. To construct an approximate confidence interval, the analyst should apply the appropriate critical point from the "z" distribution (e.g. z=1.96 for a two-sided 95% confidence interval half-width). Furthermore, the approximate standard errors in the table apply only to single point estimates of percentages not to the difference between two percentage estimates. The generalized variance results presented in Table 17 are a useful tool for initial, cursory examination of the NES survey results. For more in depth analysis and reporting of critical estimates, analysts are encouraged to compute exact estimates of standard errors using the appropriate choice of a sampling error program and computation model. Table 17: Generalized Variance Table. 1992 NES Pre-Election Survey. APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR PERCENTAGES For percentage estimates near. Sample n 50% 40% or 30% or 20% or 10% or 60% 70% 80% 90% The approximate standard error of the percentage is: 100 5.385 5.277 4.933 4.308 3.231 200 3.912 3.824 3.581 3.128 2.343 300 3.278 3.210 3.006 2.260 1.962 400 2.905 2.846 2.661 2.324 1.743 500 2.663 2.603 2.437 2.128 1.593 750 2.294 2.244 2.094 1.657 1.250 1000 2.078 2.039 1.907 1.657 1.250 1500 1.846 1.803 1.688 1.474 1.102 2000 1.722 1.691 1.568 1.368 1.030 2500 1.637 1.604 1.506 1.310 0.982 >> NES TECHNICAL REPORTS AND OTHER OCCASIONAL PAPERS, 1994 1. Sanchez, Maria. (July 1982) "7-Point Scales." 2. Shanks, J. Merrill, Maria Sanchez, and Betsy Morton. (March 1983). "Alternative Approaches to Survey Data Collection for the National Election Studies." 3. Lake, Celinda. (September 1983) "Similarity and Representativeness of 1983 Pilot Samples." 4. Lake, Celinda. (November 1983) "Comparison of 3-point, 5-point, and 7-point Scales from the CATI Experiment 1982 Election Study." 5. NES Staff. (December 1983) "1980 Precinct Data Returns Project." 6. Lake, Celinda. (February 1984) "Coding of Independent/Independents and Apoliticals in the Party Identification Summary Code and Apoliticals in the Rolling Cross-Section." 7. Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez. (February 1984) "Creation of a Filter Variable to be Used When Analyzing Questions about Congressional Candidates in the 1982 Integrated Personal/ISR CATI/Berkeley CATI Dataset: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 8. Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez. (March 1984) "Comparison of the Michigan Method of District Assignment on the Telephone with the Personal Interview Simulated Data: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 9. Traugott, Santa. (June 1984) "Two Versions of the Abortion Question." 10. Sanchez, Maria.(July 1984) "Branching versus 7-point scale measurements." . 11. NES Staff. (August 1984) "Weekly Field Report for the National Election Studies Continuous Monitoring, Jan. 11 - Aug. 3, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 12. NES Staff. (August 1984) "Questions and Versions in NES Continuous Monitoring, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 13. NES Staff. (n.d) "Years of Schooling." 14. NES Staff. (n.d) "Newspaper Code." 15. Traugott, Santa. (n.d.) "The Political Interest Variable on the 1984 Election Study." Unpublished Staff Memo to NES Planning Committee. 16. Sanchez, Maria and Giovanna Morchio. (n.d.) Probing Don't Know Answers -- Do We Always Want to Do This?" 17. NES Staff. (February 1985) "Progress of the Rolling Cross Section." 18. Traugott, Santa. (February 1985) "Production for the Pre-Post." 19. Traugott, Santa. (February 1985) "Some Analysis of Hard-to-Reach Rolling Thunder Respondents." 20. Traugott, Santa. (April 1985) "Sample Weighting in NES Continuous Monitoring, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 21. Traugott, Santa. (April 1985). "Sample Weight- ing in NES Pre-Post Election Survey, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 22. Brehm, John. (June 1985) "Report on Coding of Economic Conditions Series in the 1984 Pre-Post Election Study." 23. Brehm, John. (July 1985). "Question Ordering Effects on Reported Vote Choice. 24. Traugott, Santa. (July 1985) "Assessment of Media Measures in RXS." 25. Traugott, Santa. (July 1985) "Assessment of Media Measures in Pre-Post." 26. Brehm, John. (August 1985). "Analysis of Result Code Disposition for Continuous Monitoring by Time in Field: Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 27. Morchio, Giovanna, Maria Sanchez and Santa Traugott. (November 1985). "Mode Differences: DK Responses in the 1984 Post-Election Survey: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 28. Morchio, Giovanna and Santa Traugott. (February 1986) "Congressional District Assignment in an RDD Sample: Results of 1982 CATI Experiment." 29. Brehm, John and Santa Traugott. (March 1986) "Similarity and Representativeness of the 1985 Pilot Half-samples." 30. Gronke, Paul. (September 1986) "NES Question C2: R's Party Registration." 31. Brehm, John. (March 1987) "How Representative is the 1986 Post-Election Survey?" 32. Morchio, Giovanna. (May 1987) "Trends in NES Response Rates." 33. Brehm, John. (December 1987) "Who's Missing? an Analysis of NonResponse in the 1986 Election Study: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 34. Traugott, Santa. (August 1989) "Validating Self-Reported Vote: 1964-1988." 35. NES Staff. (February 1990) "Possible Bias Due to Attrition and Sample Selection in the 1989 Pilot." 36. Traugott, Santa and Giovanna Morchio. (March 1990) "Assessment of Bias Due to Attrition and Sample Selection in the NES 1989 Pilot Study." 37. Downes-Le Guin, Theodore. (May 1990) "Nonresponse in the 1988 National Election Studies" 38. Gronke, Paul. (May 1990) "Assessing the Sample Quality of the 1988 Senate Election Study: A response to Wright." 39. Presser, Stanley, Michael W. Traugott and Santa Traugott. (November 1990). "Vote 'Over' Reporting in Surveys: The Records or the Respondents?" 40. Bloom, Joel. (March 1991) "Sources of Pro- incumbent Bias in NES Survey Estimates for U.S. House Races since 1978: A Second Look." 41. Mayer, Russell. (November 1991) "Identifying Bias in Voting Models." 42. Traugott, Michael W., Santa Traugott and Stanley Presser. (May 1992) "Revalidation of Self-Reported Vote." 43. Rosenstone, Steven J., Margaret Petrella and Donald R. Kinder. (June 1993) "The Consequences of Substituting Telephone for Face-to-Face Interviewing in the 1992 National Election Study." 44. Luevano, Patricia. (March 1994) "Response Rates in the National Election Studies, 1948-1992." 45. Traugott, Santa and Steven J. Rosenstone. (Nov. 1994) "Panel Attrition Among the 1990-1992 Panel Respondents." 46. Traugott, Santa and Steven J. Rosenstone. (Nov. 1994) "Demographic Characteristics of Respondents to the 1980, 1984 and 1988 NES Pre-Election Studies by Week of Interview." 47. Traugott, Santa. (Nov. 1994) "Candidate Traits Used in NES Studies, 1979-1994." 48. Traugott, Santa. (Nov. 1994) "Affects Towards Candidates Used in NES Studies, 1979- 1994." 49. Traugott, Santa. (Nov. 1994) "Candidate Placements Used in NES Studies, 1968-1994." 50. Sheng, Shing-Yuan. (Jan. 1995) "NES Measurements of Values and Pre-Dispositions, 1984-1992." 51. Traugott, Santa. (Feb. 1995) "NES Question Batteries: Measuring Values and Dispositions, 1983-1994." >> NES PILOT STUDY REPORTS, 1991 AND 1993 1991 PILOT STUDY REPORTS Beebe, Tim. The Effects of Pre-Notification and Incentive on Panel Attrition. Undated. Brady, Henry E. Report on Feeling Thermometer for "Moderates." January 13, 1992. Citrin, Jack, Donald P. Green, Beth Reingold and David O. Conover, Pamela J., and Virginia Sapiro. Gender Consciousness and Gender Politics in the 1991 Pilot Study: A Report to the ANES Board of Overseers. January, 1992. Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. An Analysis of Information Items on the 1990 and 1991 NES Surveys: A Report to the Board of Overseers for the National Election Studies. January 14, 1992. Highton, Benjamin, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. Estimating the Size of Minority Groups. January 13, 1992. Huddy, Leonie. Analysis of Old-Age Policy Items in the 1991 Pilot Study. Undated. Huddy, Leonie. Addendum. February 2, 1992. Knack, Stephen. Social Connectedness and Voter Participation: Evidence from the 1991 NES Pilot Study. January 1992. Knack, Stephen. Social Altruism and Voter Turnout: Evidence from the 1991 NES Pilot Study. January, 1992. Knack, Stephen. Performance and Recommendations Summary for 1991 NES Pilot Variables #2828-2847. January 24, 1992. Knack, Stephen. Deterring Voter Registration Through Juror Source Practices: Evidence from the 1991 NES Pilot Study. January, 1992. Oliver, Eric, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. Jury Duty as a Deterrent to Voter Registration. January 22, 1992. Sears. A Report on Measures of American Identity and New "Ethnic" Issues in the 1991 NES Pilot Study. Undated. Zaller, John. Report on 1991 Pilot Items on Environment. February 2, 1992. 1993 PILOT STUDY REPORTS Dennis, Jack. The Perot Constituency: A Report to the Board of Overseers of the National Election Studies. March 10, 1994. Franklin, Charles H. Report on the 1993 NES Pilot Study. March 16, 1994 Jacobson, Gary and Doug Rivers. Overreport of Vote for House Incumbents in NES Surveys. March 11, 1994. Strand, Douglas. Homosexuality, Gay Rights, and the Clinton Coalition: Report to the National Election Studies on Results from the 1993 NES Pilot Study. March 16, 1994. Stoker, Laura. New Items on the 1993 Pilot Study. March 9, 1994. Stoker, Laura. A Reconsideration of Self-Interest in American Public Opinion. Presented at the annual meeting of the Western Politcal Science Association. Albuquerque, New Mexico. (March 10-12, 1994) Zaller, John. Securing the District. March 11, 1994. MASTER CODES >> 1994 CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODE 001 "Domestic issues" 006 Child care; DAY CARE; child support 045 ABORTION; any reference 010 UNEMPLOYMENT, jobs, retraining -- general or national 011 Unemployment, lack of jobs in specific area/region/state/industry 012 More help for the unemployed 020 EDUCATION -- any mention, including quality of schools, cost of college, students not learning anything 030 AGED/ELDERLY -- any mention, including Social Security, Medicare, eldercare. 040 HEALTH PROBLEMS -- quality of medical care, cost of medical care, availability of medical care, catastrophic health insurance (except AIDS, code 048) 048 AIDS 050 HOUSING -- providing housing for the poor, the homeless, young people can't buy homes, any mention. 055 INFRASTRUCTURE -- Build/maintain roads, bridges, railroads, mass transit systems; transportation - NFS "POVERTY" has the general thrust of helping the underpriveleged; the 'welfare' code 090 may have connotation of undeserving people on welfare. Thus, 'do more for people on welfare' is a 060 rather than 90. WELFARE --NFS is a 090. 060 POVERTY; aid to poor, underprivileged people; help for the (truly) needy; general reference to anti- poverty programs; hunger/help for hungry people 090 SOCIAL WELFARE; "Welfare"; the welfare mess, too many undeserving on welfare 099 OTHER SPECIFIC MENTIONS OF DOMESTIC ISSUES 100 Problems of the FARMERS; farm bankruptcies, poor prices for crops, effects of the drought 150 Protecting the ENVIRONMENT, POLLUTION, the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect. 151 Controlling/REGULATING GROWTH or land development; banning further growth/development in crowded or ecologically sensitive areas; preverving natural areas 154 TOXIC WASTE, RADIOACTIVE WASTE 160 Need to develop ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES 199 Other specific mentions of AGRICULTURE or ENVIRONMENT problems 300 CIVIL RIGHTS/RACIAL PROBLEMS; affirmative action programs; relations between blacks and whites 310 WOMEN'S ISSUES -- ERA, equal pay for equal work, maternity leave (except day care, code 006) 320 DRUGS -- extent of drug use in U.S; "WAR ON DRUGS"; drugs--NFS; ALCOHOLISM, any mention 321 DRUGS -- stopping drugs from coming into this country 340 CRIME/VIOLENCE; streets aren't safe; respect for police; releasing criminals early; not enough jails; death penalty 367 GUN CONTROL - all mentions 370 EXTREMIST GROUPS/TERRORISTS 380 General mention of MORALITY/TRADITIONAL VALUES; sex, bad language, pornography, teenage pregnancy 381 Specific mention of FAMILY VALUES -- latchkey children, divorce; unwed mothers, working mothers 382 Homosexual/gay rights; gays in the military [code 048 for mentions of AIDS) 384 RELIGION (too mixed up in) and politics; prayer in schools 399 OTHER MENTION of race, public order, morality 400 INFLATION, high prices, cost of living 405 WAGES TOO LOW; minimum wage 408 Recession/Depression in specific industries, states or regions -- slump in OIL/STEEL/AUTO INDUSTRY, etc. (except farm, code 101); hard times in this REGION or area 410 RECESSION; DEPRESSION, hard times -- no specific locale or industry 415 THE DEFICIT; BALANCING THE BUDGET; cutting government spending 416 TAXES -- any reference; tax reform 425 TOO MANY IMPORTS -- protectionism, competition, outsourcing, problems of auto industry relating to foreign competition; U.S. makes (too) few exports; (high) tariffs imposed by other nations; free trade; GATT 427 VALUE OF THE DOLLAR -- strengthening or weakening 428 STOCK MARKETS; investments; interest rates 440 CLASS ORIENTED ECONOMIC CONCERNS -- middle class getting squeezed; big business too powerful 453 Solvency/stability/regulation/control of the nation's FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. [1990] Savings and Loan scandals 460 IMMIGRATION 491 ECONOMICS, THE ECONOMY 493 BALANCE OF TRADE; balance of payments; foreign oil dependency (except supply of oil, see 524) 499 OTHER MENTION of economic, business or labor problems 500 FOREIGN POLICY; FOREIGN AFFAIRS 514 LATIN AMERICA, Central America, AID TO CONTRAS (reference to IRAN-CONTRA coded 816) 516 AFRICA -- starving people, overpopulation 517 SOUTH AFRICA -- Apartheid 524 MIDDLE EAST -- Iran hostages, Persian Gulf, supply of mid-east oil (except oil dependency, see 493) 530 RUSSIA -- relations with, arms talks, detente; summit, etc. 540 FIRMNESS in foreign policy 550 U.S. military involvement abroad 560 FOREIGN AID; amount of money given to foreign countries; obligation to take care of our problems at home first 570 AVOID WAR, establish PEACE -- any reference 700 DEFENSE (SPENDING); the military; quality/cost of weapons 710 NUCLEAR ARMS RACE -- disarmament, SALT, INF, threat of nuclear war; arms control 712 STAR WARS 714 SPACE PROGRAM 810 Honesty, sincerity of government officials; corruption 811 Honesty, sincerity of candidates in general; e.g., "just making promises," "saying whatever it takes to get elected" 812 Candidates are just talking (negatively) about each other, MUD SLINGING. 813 How well incumbent represents/candidate would REPRESENT THIS DISTRICT 814 Congressperson's personal life/morality 815 Candidate's ABILITY/EXPERIENCE 816 Candidate's (voting) RECORD 817 PRESIDENT CLINTON 818 BUSH and the IRAN-CONTRA affair 819 IRAN-CONTRA affair, mess, scandal, IRAN ARMS DEAL, without reference to Bush 850 Which party will control the House of Representatives; other partisan mentions 851 Need for change/new blood/fresh ideas in Congress; term limits for members of Congress 876 PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES between the candidates - liberal vs. conservative views; balance of authority between state and federal government; etc. 900 A local issue or concern -- the college, the dam, the auto-insurance initiative, the leak in our nuclear plant 991 1992: OTHER SPECIFIC MENTIONS OF CAMPAIGN ISSUES 995 1990: "There were no issues" (except 996); just party politics 997 1990: OTHER SPECIFIC MENTIONS OF CAMPAIGN ISSUES 996 1992: INAP 1990: "There was no campaign in my district" [Missing Data] 998 DK >> 1994 CAMPAIGN POLITICAL ADVERTISMENTS R Pays No Attention To Political Ads 001 R claims not to remember what the ads s/he saw were about - NFS (R says only "nothing", "very little/not much", "can't remember", "don't recall", etc. without further explanation or elaboration). 002 R deliberately and actively avoids watching political ads (I hit the mute button/change the channel; I go to the refrigerator, etc.). 003 R does watch the political ads but indicates s/he chooses to pay no attention to them (I don't pay much attention, they don't register on my mind, goes in one ear and out the other, I just laugh at them, I'm immune to them). R GIVE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF POLITICAL ADS (NO CANDIDATE SPECIFIED) 010 AMOUNT/FREQUENCY OF ADS - too many of them; they show too many in one evening/time period; see the same ones over and over. 011 PROVIDE NO INFORMATION/SERVE NO VALUABLE PURPOSE - too vague/general; not specific (enough); not talking about real/important issues; contain only rhetoric/self-serving promotion/platitudes; point out problems but offer no solutions. 012 PROVIDE INFORMATION/SERVE VALUABLE PURPOSE - talk about (important) issues/candidate's stands on issues; try to present solutions to issues; are enlightening; treat voters like grown-ups. 013 DISHONEST/MISLEADING - (too) deceitful; tell lies/half-truths/only the facts that help them; try to confuse/hide/avoid the issues; say only what they think the voter wants to hear. 014 HONEST/STRAIGHT-FORWARD - tells the truth; presents the (real) facts/all the facts; tries to clarify/face the issues; they make sense. 015 NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING - (too negative); (too much) backbiting/mudslinging; only try to tear opponents down/make personal attacks on opponent. 016 POSITIVE CAMPAIGNING - doesn't make personal attacks on opponent; talk about the candidate/why the candidate should be elected. 017 HAD NEGATIVE EFFECT ON R - made R angry/disgusted; destroyed R's interest in politics/the election; R finds them boring; R is tired of seeing them. GENERAL ASSESSMENT, NO SPECIFIC CANDIDATE (CONT'D) 018 HAD POSITIVE EFFECT ON R - helped R understand the candidate/issues; helped R decide who to vote for. 028 OTHER POSITIVE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF POLITICAL ADS (NO CANDIDATE SPECIFIED) 029 OTHER NEGATIVE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF POLITICAL ADS (NO CANDIDATE SPECIFIED) R GIVES GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF BUSH POLITICAL ADS 030 AMOUNT/FREQUENCY OF BUSH ADS - too many of them; they show too many in one evening/time period; see the same ones over and over. 031 BUSH ADS PROVIDE NO INFORMATION/SERVE NO VALUABLE PURPOSE - too vague/general; not specific (enough); not talking about real/important issues; contain only rhetoric/self-serving promotion/platitudes; point out problems but offer no solutions. 032 BUSH ADS PROVIDE INFORMATION/SERVE VALUABLE PURPOSE - talk about (important) issues/candidate's stands on issues; try to present solutions to issues; are enlightening; treat voters like grown-ups. 033 BUSH ADS DISHONEST/MISLEADING - (too) deceitful; tell lies/half-truths/only the facts that help them; try to confuse/hide/avoid the issues; say only what they think the voter wants to hear. 034 BUSH ADS HONEST/STRAIGHT-FORWARD - tells the truth; presents the (real) facts/all the facts; tries to clarify/face the issues; they make sense. 035 NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING BY BUSH - (too negative); (too much) backbiting/mudslinging; only try to tear opponents down/make personal attacks on opponent. 036 POSITIVE CAMPAIGNING BY BUSH - doesn't make personal attacks on opponent; talk about the candidate/why the candidate should be elected. 037 BUSH ADS HAD NEGATIVE EFFECT ON R - made R angry/disgusted; destroyed R's interest in politics/the election; R finds them boring; R is tired of seeing them. 038 BUSH ADS HAD POSITIVE EFFECT ON R - helped R understand the candidate/issues; helped R decide who to vote for. 039 R REFUSES TO LISTEN TO/WATCH BUSH ADS SPECIFICALLY 048 OTHER POSITIVE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF BUSH POLITICAL ADS 049 OTHER NEGATIVE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF BUSH POLITICAL ADS R GIVES GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF CLINTON POLITICAL ADS 050 AMOUNT/FREQUENCY OF CLINTON ADS - too many of them; they show too many in one evening/time period; see the same ones over and over. 051 CLINTON ADS PROVIDE NO INFORMATION/SERVE NO VALUABLE PURPOSE - too vague/general; not specific (enough); not talking about real/important issues; contain only rhetoric/self-serving promotion/platitudes; point out problems but offer no solutions. 052 CLINTON ADS PROVIDE INFORMATION/SERVE VALUABLE PURPOSE - talk about (important) issues/candidate's stands on issues; try to present solutions to issues; are enlightening; treat voters like grown-ups. 053 CLINTON ADS DISHONEST/MISLEADING - (too) deceitful; tell lies/half-truths/only the facts that help them; try to confuse/hide/avoid the issues; say only what they think the voter wants to hear. 054 CLINTON ADS HONEST/STRAIGHT-FORWARD - tells the truth; presents the (real) facts/all the facts; tries to clarify/face the issues; they make sense. 055 NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING BY CLINTON - (too negative); (too much) backbiting/mudslinging; only try to tear opponents down/make personal attacks on opponent. 056 POSITIVE CAMPAIGNING BY CLINTON - doesn't make personal attacks on opponent; talk about the candidate/why the candidate should be elected. 057 CLINTON ADS HAD NEGATIVE EFFECT ON R - made R angry/disgusted; destroyed R's interest in politics/the election; R finds them boring; R is tired of seeing them. 058 CLINTON ADS HAD POSITIVE EFFECT ON R - helped R understand the candidate/issues; helped R decide who to vote for. 059 R REFUSES TO LISTEN TO/WATCH CLINTON ADS SPECIFICALLY 068 OTHER POSITIVE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF CLINTON POLITICAL ADS 069 OTHER NEGATIVE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF CLINTON POLITICAL ADS R GIVES GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF PEROT POLITICAL ADS 070 AMOUNT/FREQUENCY OF PEROT ADS - too many of them; they show too many in one evening/time period; see the same ones over and over. 071 PEROT ADS PROVIDE NO INFORMATION/SERVE NO VALUABLE PURPOSE - too vague/general; not specific (enough); not talking about real/important issues; contain only rhetoric/self-serving promotion/platitudes; point out problems but offer no solutions. 072 PEROT ADS PROVIDE INFORMATION/SERVE VALUABLE PURPOSE - talk about (important) issues/candidate's stands on issues; try to present solutions to issues; are enlightening; treat voters like grown-ups. 073 PEROT ADS DISHONEST/MISLEADING - (too) deceitful; tell lies/half-truths/only the facts that help them; try to confuse/hide/avoid the issues; say only what they think the voter wants to hear. 074 PEROT ADS HONEST/STRAIGHT-FORWARD - tells the truth; presents the (real) facts/all the facts; tries to clarify/face the issues; they make sense. 075 NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING BY PEROT - (too negative); (too much) backbiting/mudslinging; only try to tear opponents down/make personal attacks on opponent. 076 POSITIVE CAMPAIGNING BY PEROT - doesn't make personal attacks on opponent; talk about the candidate/why the candidate should be elected. 077 PEROT ADS HAD NEGATIVE EFFECT ON R - made R angry/disgusted; destroyed R's interest in politics/the election; R finds them boring; R is tired of seeing them. 078 PEROT ADS HAD POSITIVE EFFECT ON R - helped R understand the candidate/issues; helped R decide who to vote for. 079 R refuses to listen to/watch Perot ads specifically 088 Other positive general assessment of Perot political ads 089 Other negative general assessment of Perot political ads R IDENTIFIES SPECIFIC BUSH POLITICAL ADS 130 Bush ad - no other details given. 131 Bush ad - no content given, but production details remembered (e.g., closeup of face, sitting on edge of desk, it was green). 132 Bush ad - "Two Faces of Clinton"/Time magazine cover highlighting two faces. 133 Bush ad - computer ad. 134 Bush ad - on Bush's record in general. 135 Bush ad - attacking Clinton's record in Arkansas. 136 Bush ad - on Clinton's draft record/anti-American activities. 137 Bush ad - about taxes; saying Bush won't raise taxes (again). 138 Bush ad - about Bush's economic plan/promises for the economy. 139 Bush ad - Florida relief; giving food to poor countries; Bush portrayed as a caring person. 140 Bush ad - family values; families coming together; Bush portrayed as a family man. 141 Bush ad - foreign policy accomplishments of the Bush administration; Bush shown as commander-in-chief. 142 Bush ad - needs four more years to finish the job. 143 Bush ad - clips from the Republican convention. 144 Bush ad - average people questioning Clinton's willingness and ability to keep his promised. 149 Bush ad - other R IDENTIFIES SPECIFIC CLINTON POLITICAL ADS 150 Clinton ad - no other details given. 151 Clinton ad - no content given, but production details remembered (e.g., closeup of face, waving to crowd, flag in background). 152 Clinton ad - attacking Bush's broken promise not to raise taxes; "read my lips -- no new taxes". 153 Clinton ad - attacking Bush's handling of the economy; "we can't afford four more years". 154 Clinton ad - about creating jobs/putting people back to work. 155 Clinton ad - about the need for change; about rebuilding America/putting American on the right course. 156 Clinton ad - defending Clinton's record in Arkansas/record on taxes as governor. 157 Clinton ad - reforming welfare. 158 Clinton ad - showing working people. 159 Clinton ad - defending Clinton's draft record. 160 Clinton ad - giving address to write to for Clinton's economic plan; experts endorsing Clinton's economic plan. 169 Clinton ad - other R IDENTIFIES SPECIFIC PEROT POLITICAL ADS 170 Perot ad - no other details given. 171 Perot ad - no content given, but production details remembered (e.g., sitting behind a desk, scroll with writing, 30 minutes long). 172 Perot ad - used a lot of charts and graphs. 173 Perot ad - describing in general terms problems with the economy/the deficit. 174 Perot ad - detailed how the deficit would affect future generations. 175 Perot ad - plans/promises to solve America's problems. 176 Perot ad - Purple Heart ad 189 Perot ad - other R IDENTIFIES A SPECIFIC EVENT THAT WAS NOT A PRESIDENTIAL POLITICAL AD 190 Other - R describes a new event that clearly was not part of a political ad (e.g., Quayle talking about Murphy Brown; Mary Matalin talking about Hillary Clinton). 191 Other - R describes a political ad, but one for a congressional, state or local candidate or one concerning a controversial issue (e.g., abortion, gay rights, etc.). MISCELLANEOUS 997 Other, miscellaneous 998 DK (except 001-003) 999 NA >> 1994 CANDIDATE NUMBER MASTER CODE SENATE: 10 Third party or independent Senate candidate ** 11 Democratic candidate in open Senate race 12 Republican candidate in open Senate race 13 Democratic Senate incumbent 14 Republican Senate incumbent 15 Democratic Senate challenger 16 Republican Senate challenger 17 Democratic Senator, no race in state 18 Republican Senator, no race in state 19 Democratic Senator, term not up in state with race 21 Democratic Senator--retiring (state with open race) 22 Republican Senator--retiring (state with open race) 27 Democratic Senator, no race in state 28 Republican Senator, no race in state 29 Republican Senator, term not up in state with race HOUSE: 30 Third party or independent House candidate ** 31 Democratic candidate in open House race 32 Republican candidate in open House race 33 Democratic House incumbent 34 Republican House incumbent 35 Democratic House challenger 36 Republican House challenger 41 Democratic Representative--retiring (district with open race) 42 Republican Representative--retiring (district with open race) GOVERNOR: [NOT USED 1992] 50 Third party or independent Gubernatorial candidate ** 51 Democratic candidate in open Gubernatorial race 52 Republican candiate in open Gubernatorial race 53 Democratic Gubernatorial incumbent 54 Republican Gubernatorial incumbent 55 Democratic Gubernatorial challenger 56 Republican Gubernatorial challenger 57 Democratic governor, no race in state 58 Republican governor, no race in state 61 Democratic governor--retiring (state with open race) 62 Republican governor--retiring (state with open race) OTHER: 90 Both Democratic and Republican candidates (used in incumbency var only) 97 Name given not on Candidate List MISSING DATA: 98 DK; refused to name candidate 99 NA 00 INAP ++VOTED OUTSIDE DISTRICT OF IW: DISTRICT WITH NO RUNNING INCUMBENT: (VOTE VAR ONLY) 81 Democratic candidate 82 Republican candidate DISTRICT WITH RUNNING INCUMBENT: (VOTE VAR ONLY) 83 Democratic incumbent 84 Republican incumbent 85 Democratic challenger 86 Republican challenger ALL DISTRICTS: (VOTE VAR ONLY) 80 Third party or independent candidate ** 91 Democrat--no name given 92 Republican--no name given ** IF 3RD PARTY/INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE NAMED, THIS CODE IS USED ONLY IF NAME APPEARS ON CANDIDATE LIST (IF NAME NOT ON CANDIDATE LIST, CODE 97 IS USED). NOTE: CODE 97 INCLUDES INSTANCES WHERE R VOTED STRAIGHT MAJOR PARTY TICKET BUT NO CANDIDATE FOR R'S PARTY RAN FOR GIVEN OFFICE (OR: R INSISTS VOTED FOR A MAJOR PARTY'S CANDIDATE BUT NO CANDIDATE RAN FOR GIVEN OFFICE REPRESENTING NAMED MAJOR PARTY). ++ CODES 80-86,91,92 ARE NOT USED IN VARS OTHER THAN VOTE VARS. GENERAL NOTE: IN THOSE QUESTIONS WHERE R IS NOT READ NAMES OF CANDIDATES BUT R SUPPLIES A CANDIDATE NAME OF HIS/HER OWN CONSTRUCTION [I.E., IN RECALL, 'MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM IN DISTRICT' HOUSE CANDIDATE], RESPONDENTS SOMETIMES IN ERROR GIVE NAMES OF CANDIDATES FOR OTHER OFFICES OR NAMES OF NONRUNNING OFFICEHOLDERS. IF SUCH A NAME IS DETERMINED TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR R'S STATE/CD AND THE NAME IS CODEABLE FROM THE CANDIDATE LIST USED, WHEREVER POSSIBLE THE 'INCORRECT' NAME IS STILL CODED. (However, see ** for 3rd/party and independent candidates). [NOTE: If R names candidates from districts other than district corresponding to R's sample location, those candidates' codes are not coded--97 is used.] >> 1994 BALLOT CARDS AND CANDIDATE LISTS BALLOT CARD 1994 The 1994 study included an experiment in the layout of the Ballot Card. Respondents were presented alternative versions of the ballot identical in content, but different in design. For sample ballots please contact the NES study staff. CANDIDATE LIST 1994 Alabama 03 33 Glen Browder Democratic incumbent 36 Ben Hand Republican challenger 17 Howell T. Heflin Democratic -- term not up 27 Richard C. Shelly Democratic -- term not up 53 James E. Folsom, Jr Democratic incumbent 56 Fob James, Jr. Republican challenger Alabama 04 33 Tom Bevill Democratic incumbent 17 Howell T. Heflin Democratic -- term not up 27 Richard C. Shelly Democratic -- term not up 53 James E. Folsom, Jr Democratic incumbent 56 Fob James, Jr. Republican challenger Alabama 05 33 Robert E. "Bud" Cram Democratic incumbent 36 Wayne Parker Republican challenger 17 Howell T. Heflin Democratic -- term not up 27 Richard C. Shelly Democratic -- term not up 53 James E. Folsom, Jr Democratic incumbent 56 Fob James, Jr. Republican challenger Alabama 06 35 Larry Fortenberry Democratic challenger 34 Spencer Bachus Republican incumbent 17 Howell T. Heflin Democratic -- term not up 27 Richard C. Shelly Democratic -- term not up 53 James E. Folsom, Jr Democratic incumbent 56 Fob James, Jr. Republican challenger Alabama 07 33 Earl F. Hilliard Democratic incumbent 36 Alfred J. Middleton, Republican challenger 17 Howell T. Heflin Democratic -- term not up 27 Richard C. Shelly Democratic -- term not up 53 James E. Folsom, Jr Democratic incumbent 56 Fob James, Jr. Republican challenger Arkansas 04 35 Jay Bradford Democratic challenger 34 Jay Dickey Republican incumbent 17 David Pryor Democratic -- term not up 27 Dale Bumpers Democratic -- term not up 53 Jim Guy Tucker Democratic incumbent 56 Sheffield Nelson Republican challenger Arizona 01 31 Chuck Blanchard Democratic candidate 32 Matt Salmon Republican candidate 11 Sam Coppersmith Democratic candidate 12 Jon Kyl Republican candidate 29 John McCain Republican -- term not up 55 Eddie Basha Democratic challenger 54 Fife Symington Republican incumbent Arizona 02 33 Ed Pastor Democratic incumbent 36 Robert MacDonald Republican challenger 11 Sam Coppersmith Democratic candidate 12 Jon Kyl Republican candidate 29 John McCain Republican -- term not up 55 Eddie Basha Democratic challenger 54 Fife Symington Republican incumbent Arizona 03 35 Howard Lee Sprague Democratic challenger 34 Bob Stump Republican incumbent 11 Sam Coppersmith Democratic candidate 12 Jon Kyl Republican candidate 29 John McCain Republican -- term not up 55 Eddie Basha Democratic challenger 54 Fife Symington Republican incumbent Arizona 04 31 Carol Cure Democratic candidate 32 John Shadegg Republican candidate 11 Sam Coppersmith Democratic candidate 12 Jon Kyl Republican candidate 29 John McCain Republican -- term not up 55 Eddie Basha Democratic challenger 54 Fife Symington Republican incumbent Arizona 06 33 Karan English Democratic incumbent 36 J.D. Hayworth Republican challenger 11 Sam Coppersmith Democratic candidate 12 Jon Kyl Republican candidate 29 John McCain Republican -- term not up 55 Eddie Basha Democratic challenger 54 Fife Symington Republican incumbent California 04 35 Katie Hirning Democratic challenger 34 John Doolittle Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 06 33 Lynn Woolsey Democratic incumbent 36 Michael J. Nugent Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 08 33 Nancy Pelosi Democratic incumbent 36 Elsa C. Cheung Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 09 33 Ronald V. Dellums Democratic incumbent 36 Deborah Wright Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 10 35 Ellen Schwartz Democratic challenger 34 Bill Baker Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 12 33 Tom Lantos Democratic incumbent 36 Deborah Wilder Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 13 33 Pete Stark Democratic incumbent 36 Larry Molton Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 19 33 Richard H. Lehman Democratic incumbent 36 George P. Radanovich Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 20 33 Cal Dooley Democratic incumbent 36 Paul Young Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 24 33 Anthony C. Beilenson Democratic incumbent 36 Rich Sybert Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 26 33 Howard L. Berman Democratic incumbent 36 Gary E. Forsch Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 27 35 Doug Kahn Democratic challenger 34 Carlos J. Moorhead Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 28 35 Tommy Randle Democratic challenger 34 David Dreier Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 29 33 Henry A. Waxman Democratic incumbent 36 Paul Stepanek Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 30 33 Xavier Becerra Democratic incumbent 36 David A. Ramirez Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 32 33 Julian C. Dixon Democratic incumbent 36 Ernie A. Farhat Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 33 33 Lucille Roybal-Allar Democratic incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 35 33 Maxine Waters Democratic incumbent 36 Nate Truman Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 38 35 Peter Mathews Democratic challenger 34 Steve B. Horn Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 39 35 R.O. "Bob" Davis Democratic challenger 34 Ed Royce Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 40 35 Donald "Don" Rusk Democratic challenger 34 Jerry Lewis Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 42 33 George E. Brown, Jr. Democratic incumbent 36 Rob Guzman Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 43 35 Mark A. Takano Democratic challenger 34 Ken Calvert Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 44 31 Steve Clute Democratic candidate 32 Sonny Bono Republican candidate 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 45 35 Brett Williamson Democratic challenger 34 Dana Rohrabacher Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 46 35 Michael Farber Democratic challenger 34 Robert K. Dornan Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 47 35 Gary Kingsbury Democratic challenger 34 Christopher Cox Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 48 35 Andrei Leschick Democratic challenger 34 Ron Packard Republican incumbent 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 49 33 Lynn Schenk Democratic incumbent 36 Brian P. Bilbray Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent California 50 33 Bob Filner Democratic incumbent 36 Mary Alice Acevedo Republican challenger 13 Dianne Feinstein Democratic incumbent 16 Michael Huffington Republican challenger 19 Barbara Boxer Democratic -- term not up 55 Kathleen Brown Democratic challenger 54 Pete Wilson Republican incumbent Colorado 01 33 Patricia Schroeder Democratic incumbent 36 William Eggert Republican challenger 18 Hank Brown Republican -- term not up 17 Ben Nighthorse Democratic -- term not up Campbell 53 Roy Romer Democratic incumbent 56 Bruce Benson Republican challenger Colorado 02 33 David E. Skaggs Democratic incumbent 36 Patricia Miller Republican challenger 18 Hank Brown Republican -- term not up 17 Ben Nighthorse Democratic -- term not up Campbell 53 Roy Romer Democratic incumbent 56 Bruce Benson Republican challenger Colorado 04 35 Cathy Kipp Democratic challenger 34 Wayne Allard Republican incumbent 18 Hank Brown Republican -- term not up 17 Ben Nighthorse Democratic -- term not up Campbell 53 Roy Romer Democratic incumbent 56 Bruce Benson Republican challenger Colorado 06 35 John Hallen Democratic challenger 34 Dan Schaefer Republican incumbent 18 Hank Brown Republican -- term not up 17 Ben Nighthorse Democratic -- term not up Campbell 53 Roy Romer Democratic incumbent 56 Bruce Benson Republican challenger Connecticut 03 33 Rosa L. DeLauro Democratic incumbent 36 Susan E. Johnson Republican challenger 13 Joe Lieberman Democratic incumbent 16 Jerry Labriola Republican challenger 19 Christopher Dodd Democratic -- term not up 51 Bill Curry Democratic candidate 52 John G. Rowland Republican candidate Florida 02 33 Pete Peterson Democratic incumbent 36 Carole Griffin Republican challenger 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Florida 03 33 Corrine Brown Democratic incumbent 36 Marc Little Republican challenger 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Florida 04 34 Tillie Fowler Republican incumbent 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Florida 06 34 Clifford B. Stearns Republican incumbent 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Florida 12 35 Robert Connors Democratic challenger 34 Charles T. Canady Republican incumbent 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Florida 13 34 Dan Miller Republican incumbent 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Florida 15 31 Sue Munsey Democratic candidate 32 Dave Weldon Republican candidate 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Florida 16 31 John P. Comerford Democratic candidate 32 Mark Foley Republican candidate 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Florida 17 33 Carrie P. Meek Democratic incumbent 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Florida 18 34 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Republican incumbent 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Florida 21 34 Lincoln Diaz-Balart Republican incumbent 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Florida 22 35 Hermine L. Wiener Democratic challenger 34 E. Clay Shaw, Jr. Republican incumbent 15 Hugh E. Rodham Democratic challenger 14 Connie Mack Republican incumbent 19 Bob Graham Democratic -- term not up 53 Lawton Chiles Democratic incumbent 56 Jeb Bush Republican challenger Georgia 01 35 Raymond Beckworth Democratic challenger 34 Jack Kingston Republican incumbent 17 Sam Nunn Democratic -- term not up 18 Paul Coverdell Republican -- term not up 53 Zell Miller Democratic incumbent 56 Guy Millner Republican challenger Georgia 02 33 Sanford D. Bishop, J Democratic incumbent 36 John Clayton Republican challenger 17 Sam Nunn Democratic -- term not up 18 Paul Coverdell Republican -- term not up 53 Zell Miller Democratic incumbent 56 Guy Millner Republican challenger Georgia 03 35 Fred R. Overby Democratic challenger 34 Mac Collins Republican incumbent 17 Sam Nunn Democratic -- term not up 18 Paul Coverdell Republican -- term not up 53 Zell Miller Democratic incumbent 56 Guy Millner Republican challenger Georgia 04 35 Comer Yates Democratic challenger 34 John Linder Republican incumbent 17 Sam Nunn Democratic -- term not up 18 Paul Coverdell Republican -- term not up 53 Zell Miller Democratic incumbent 56 Guy Millner Republican challenger Georgia 05 33 John Lewis Democratic incumbent 36 Dale Dixon Republican challenger 17 Sam Nunn Democratic -- term not up 18 Paul Coverdell Republican -- term not up 53 Zell Miller Democratic incumbent 56 Guy Millner Republican challenger Georgia 06 35 Ben Jones Democratic challenger 34 Newt Gingrich Republican incumbent 17 Sam Nunn Democratic -- term not up 18 Paul Coverdell Republican -- term not up 53 Zell Miller Democratic incumbent 56 Guy Millner Republican challenger Georgia 07 33 George Buddy Darden Democratic incumbent 36 Bob Barr Republican challenger 17 Sam Nunn Democratic -- term not up 18 Paul Coverdell Republican -- term not up 53 Zell Miller Democratic incumbent 56 Guy Millner Republican challenger Georgia 08 31 Craig Mathis Democratic candidate 32 Saxby Chambliss Republican candidate 17 Sam Nunn Democratic -- term not up 18 Paul Coverdell Republican -- term not up 53 Zell Miller Democratic incumbent 56 Guy Millner Republican challenger Iowa 03 35 Elaine Baxter Democratic challenger 34 Jim Ross Lightfoot Republican incumbent 17 Tom Harkin Democratic -- term not up 18 Charles Grassley Republican -- term not up 55 Bonnie J. Campbell Democratic challenger 54 Terry E. Branstad Republican incumbent Iowa 04 33 Neal Smith Democratic incumbent 36 Greg Ganske Republican challenger 17 Tom Harkin Democratic -- term not up 18 Charles Grassley Republican -- term not up 55 Bonnie J. Campbell Democratic challenger 54 Terry E. Branstad Republican incumbent Illinois 01 33 Bobby L. Rush Democratic incumbent 36 William J. Kelly Republican challenger 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Illinois 02 33 Mel Reynolds Democratic incumbent 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Illinois 03 33 William O. Lipinski Democratic incumbent 36 Jim Nalepa Republican challenger 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Illinois 04 33 Luis V. Gutierrez Democratic incumbent 36 Steven Valtierra Republican challenger 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Illinois 05 33 Dan Rostenkowski Democratic incumbent 36 Michael Patrick Flan Republican challenger 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Illinois 06 35 Tom Berry Democratic challenger 34 Henry J. Hyde Republican incumbent 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Illinois 08 35 Robert C. Walberg Democratic challenger 34 Philip M. Crane Republican incumbent 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Illinois 09 33 Sidney R. Yates Democratic incumbent 36 George Edward Larney Republican challenger 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Illinois 10 35 Andrew Krupp Democratic challenger 34 John Edward Porter Republican incumbent 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Illinois 12 33 Jerry F. Costello Democratic incumbent 36 Jan Morris Republican challenger 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Illinois 13 35 William A. Riley Democratic challenger 34 Harris W. Fawell Republican incumbent 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Illinois 19 33 Glenn Poshard Democratic incumbent 36 Brent Winters Republican challenger 17 Paul Simon Democratic -- term not up 27 Carol Mosely-Braun Democratic -- term not up 55 Dawn Clark Netsch Democratic challenger 54 Jim Edgar Republican incumbent Indiana 02 31 Joseph H. Hogsett Democratic candidate 32 David M. McIntosh Republican candidate 15 Jim Jontz Democratic challenger 14 Richard G. Lugar Republican incumbent 29 Daniel Coats Republican -- term not up 57 Evan Bayh Democratic -- term not up Indiana 04 33 Jill L. Long Democratic incumbent 36 Mark Edward Souder Republican challenger 15 Jim Jontz Democratic challenger 14 Richard G. Lugar Republican incumbent 29 Daniel Coats Republican -- term not up 57 Evan Bayh Democratic -- term not up Indiana 06 35 Natalie M. Bruner Democratic challenger 34 Dan Burton Republican incumbent 15 Jim Jontz Democratic challenger 14 Richard G. Lugar Republican incumbent 29 Daniel Coats Republican -- term not up 57 Evan Bayh Democratic -- term not up Indiana 09 33 Lee H. Hamilton Democratic incumbent 36 Jean Leising Republican challenger 15 Jim Jontz Democratic challenger 14 Richard G. Lugar Republican incumbent 29 Daniel Coats Republican -- term not up 57 Evan Bayh Democratic -- term not up Kansas 02 31 John Carlin Democratic candidate 32 Sam Brownback Republican candidate 18 Nancy Landon Kassebaum Republican -- term not up 28 Robert Dole Republican -- term not up 51 Jim Slattery Democratic candidate 52 Bill Graves Republican candidate Kansas 03 35 Judy Hancock Democratic challenger 34 Jan Meyers Republican incumbent 18 Nancy Landon Kassebaum Republican -- term not up 28 Robert Dole Republican -- term not up 51 Jim Slattery Democratic candidate 52 Bill Graves Republican candidate Kansas 04 33 Dan Glickman Democratic incumbent 36 Todd Tiahrt Republican challenger 18 Nancy Landon Kassebaum Republican -- term not up 28 Robert Dole Republican -- term not up 51 Jim Slattery Democratic candidate 52 Bill Graves Republican candidate Kansas 04 33 Dan Glickman Democratic incumbent 36 Todd Tiahrt Republican challenger 18 Nancy Landon Kassebaum Republican -- term not up 28 Robert Dole Republican -- term not up 51 Jim Slattery Democratic candidate 52 Bill Graves Republican candidate Kentucky 06 33 Scotty Baesler Democratic incumbent 36 Matthew Eric Wills Republican challenger 18 Mitch McConnell Republican -- term not up 17 Wendell H. Ford Democratic -- term not up 57 Brereton C. Jones Democratic -- term not up Louisiana 04 35 Darryl Baker Democratic challenger 34 Richard H. Baker Republican incumbent 17 J. Bennett Johnston Democratic -- term not up 27 John B. Breaux Democratic -- term not up 57 Edwin W. Edwards Democratic -- term not up Massachusetts 01 33 John W. Olver Democratic incumbent 13 Edward Kennedy Democratic incumbent 16 W. Mitt Romney Republican challenger 19 John Kerry Democratic -- term not up 55 Mark Roosevelt Democratic challenger 54 William F. Weld Republican incumbent Massachusetts 02 33 Richard E. Neal Democratic incumbent 36 John W. Briare Republican challenger 13 Edward Kennedy Democratic incumbent 16 W. Mitt Romney Republican challenger 19 John Kerry Democratic -- term not up 55 Mark Roosevelt Democratic challenger 54 William F. Weld Republican incumbent Massachusetts 06 35 John F. Tierney Democratic challenger 34 Peter G. Torkildsen Republican incumbent 13 Edward Kennedy Democratic incumbent 16 W. Mitt Romney Republican challenger 19 John Kerry Democratic -- term not up 55 Mark Roosevelt Democratic challenger 54 William F. Weld Republican incumbent Massachusetts 08 33 Joseph P. Kennedy II Democratic incumbent 13 Edward Kennedy Democratic incumbent 16 W. Mitt Romney Republican challenger 19 John Kerry Democratic -- term not up 55 Mark Roosevelt Democratic challenger 54 William F. Weld Republican incumbent Massachusetts 10 33 Gerry E. Studds Democratic incumbent 36 Keith Jason Hemeon Republican challenger 13 Edward Kennedy Democratic incumbent 16 W. Mitt Romney Republican challenger 19 John Kerry Democratic -- term not up 55 Mark Roosevelt Democratic challenger 54 William F. Weld Republican incumbent Maryland 02 31 Gerry L. Brewster Democratic candidate 32 Robert L. Ehrlich, J Republican candidate 13 Paul Sarbanes Democratic incumbent 16 William Brock Republican challenger 19 Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic -- term not up 51 Parris N. Glendenin Democratic candidate 52 Ellen R. Sauerbrey Republican candidate Maryland 03 33 Benjamin L. Cardin Democratic incumbent 36 Robert Ryan Tousey Republican challenger 13 Paul Sarbanes Democratic incumbent 16 William Brock Republican challenger 19 Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic -- term not up 51 Parris N. Glendenin Democratic candidate 52 Ellen R. Sauerbrey Republican candidate Maryland 04 33 Albert R. Wynn Democratic incumbent 36 Michele Dyson Republican challenger 13 Paul Sarbanes Democratic incumbent 16 William Brock Republican challenger 19 Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic -- term not up 51 Parris N. Glendenin Democratic candidate 52 Ellen R. Sauerbrey Republican candidate Maryland 05 33 Steny H. Hoyer Democratic incumbent 36 Donald Devine Republican challenger 13 Paul Sarbanes Democratic incumbent 16 William Brock Republican challenger 19 Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic -- term not up 51 Parris N. Glendenin Democratic candidate 52 Ellen R. Sauerbrey Republican candidate Maryland 06 35 Paul Muldowney Democratic challenger 34 Roscoe G. Bartlett Republican incumbent 13 Paul Sarbanes Democratic incumbent 16 William Brock Republican challenger 19 Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic -- term not up 51 Parris N. Glendenin Democratic candidate 52 Ellen R. Sauerbrey Republican candidate Maryland 08 35 Steven Van Grack Democratic challenger 34 Constance A. Morella Republican incumbent 13 Paul Sarbanes Democratic incumbent 16 William Brock Republican challenger 19 Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic -- term not up 51 Parris N. Glendenin Democratic candidate 52 Ellen R. Sauerbrey Republican candidate Michigan 02 35 Marcus Pete Hoover Democratic challenger 34 Peter Hoekstra Republican incumbent 11 Bob Carr Democratic candidate 12 Spencer Abraham Republican candidate 19 Carl Levin Democratic -- term not up 55 Howard Wolpe Democratic challenger 54 John Engler Republican incumbent Michigan 03 35 Betsy J. Flory Democratic challenger 34 Vernon J. Ehlers Republican incumbent 11 Bob Carr Democratic candidate 12 Spencer Abraham Republican candidate 19 Carl Levin Democratic -- term not up 55 Howard Wolpe Democratic challenger 54 John Engler Republican incumbent Michigan 04 35 Damion Frasier Democratic challenger 34 Dave Camp Republican incumbent 11 Bob Carr Democratic candidate 12 Spencer Abraham Republican candidate 19 Carl Levin Democratic -- term not up 55 Howard Wolpe Democratic challenger 54 John Engler Republican incumbent Michigan 05 33 James A. Barcia Democratic incumbent 36 William T. Anderson Republican challenger 11 Bob Carr Democratic candidate 12 Spencer Abraham Republican candidate 19 Carl Levin Democratic -- term not up 55 Howard Wolpe Democratic challenger 54 John Engler Republican incumbent Michigan 09 33 Dale E. Kildee Democratic incumbent 36 Megan O'Neill Republican challenger 11 Bob Carr Democratic candidate 12 Spencer Abraham Republican candidate 19 Carl Levin Democratic -- term not up 55 Howard Wolpe Democratic challenger 54 John Engler Republican incumbent Michigan 10 33 David E. Bonior Democratic incumbent 36 David J. Lobsinger Republican challenger 11 Bob Carr Democratic candidate 12 Spencer Abraham Republican candidate 19 Carl Levin Democratic -- term not up 55 Howard Wolpe Democratic challenger 54 John Engler Republican incumbent Michigan 11 35 Mike Breshgold Democratic challenger 34 Joe Knollenberg Republican incumbent 11 Bob Carr Democratic candidate 12 Spencer Abraham Republican candidate 19 Carl Levin Democratic -- term not up 55 Howard Wolpe Democratic challenger 54 John Engler Republican incumbent Michigan 12 33 Sander M. Levin Democratic incumbent 36 John Pappageorge Republican challenger 11 Bob Carr Democratic candidate 12 Spencer Abraham Republican candidate 19 Carl Levin Democratic -- term not up 55 Howard Wolpe Democratic challenger 54 John Engler Republican incumbent Michigan 13 31 Lynn Rivers Democratic candidate 32 John A. Schall Republican candidate 11 Bob Carr Democratic candidate 12 Spencer Abraham Republican candidate 19 Carl Levin Democratic -- term not up 55 Howard Wolpe Democratic challenger 54 John Engler Republican incumbent Michigan 15 33 Barbara-Rose Collins Democratic incumbent 36 John W. Savage II Republican challenger 11 Bob Carr Democratic candidate 12 Spencer Abraham Republican candidate 19 Carl Levin Democratic -- term not up 55 Howard Wolpe Democratic challenger 54 John Engler Republican incumbent Michigan 16 33 John D. Dingell Democratic incumbent 36 Ken Larkin Republican challenger 11 Bob Carr Democratic candidate 12 Spencer Abraham Republican candidate 19 Carl Levin Democratic -- term not up 55 Howard Wolpe Democratic challenger 54 John Engler Republican incumbent Minnesota 01 31 John C. Hottinger Democratic candidate 32 Gil Gutknecht Republican candidate 11 Ann Wynia Democratic candidate 12 Rod Grams Republican candidate 19 Paul Wellstone Democratic -- term not up 55 John Marty Democratic challenger 54 Arne H. Carlson Republican incumbent Minnesota 02 33 David Minge Democratic incumbent 36 Gary B. Revier Republican challenger 11 Ann Wynia Democratic candidate 12 Rod Grams Republican candidate 19 Paul Wellstone Democratic -- term not up 55 John Marty Democratic challenger 54 Arne H. Carlson Republican incumbent Minnesota 04 33 Bruce F. Vento Democratic incumbent 36 Dennis Newinski Republican challenger 11 Ann Wynia Democratic candidate 12 Rod Grams Republican candidate 19 Paul Wellstone Democratic -- term not up 55 John Marty Democratic challenger 54 Arne H. Carlson Republican incumbent Minnesota 05 33 Martin Olav Sabo Democratic incumbent 36 Dorothy Legrand Republican challenger 11 Ann Wynia Democratic candidate 12 Rod Grams Republican candidate 19 Paul Wellstone Democratic -- term not up 55 John Marty Democratic challenger 54 Arne H. Carlson Republican incumbent Minnesota 06 31 William P. "Bill" Lu Democratic candidate 32 Tad Jude Republican candidate 11 Ann Wynia Democratic candidate 12 Rod Grams Republican candidate 19 Paul Wellstone Democratic -- term not up 55 John Marty Democratic challenger 54 Arne H. Carlson Republican incumbent Minnesota 08 33 James L. Oberstar Democratic incumbent 36 Phil Herwig Republican challenger 11 Ann Wynia Democratic candidate 12 Rod Grams Republican candidate 19 Paul Wellstone Democratic -- term not up 55 John Marty Democratic challenger 54 Arne H. Carlson Republican incumbent Missouri 02 35 Pat Kelly Democratic challenger 34 James M. Talent Republican incumbent 11 Alan Wheat Democratic candidate 12 John Ashcroft Republican candidate 29 Christopher Bond Republican -- term not up 57 Mel Carnahan Democratic -- term not up Missouri 03 33 Richard A. Gephardt Democratic incumbent 36 Gary Gill Republican challenger 11 Alan Wheat Democratic candidate 12 John Ashcroft Republican candidate 29 Christopher Bond Republican -- term not up 57 Mel Carnahan Democratic -- term not up Missouri 04 33 Ike Skelton Democratic incumbent 36 James A. Noland, Jr. Republican challenger 11 Alan Wheat Democratic candidate 12 John Ashcroft Republican candidate 29 Christopher Bond Republican -- term not up 57 Mel Carnahan Democratic -- term not up Missouri 05 31 Karen McCarthy Democratic candidate 32 Ron Freeman Republican candidate 11 Alan Wheat Democratic candidate 12 John Ashcroft Republican candidate 29 Christopher Bond Republican -- term not up 57 Mel Carnahan Democratic -- term not up Missouri 06 33 Pat Danner Democratic incumbent 36 Tina Tucker Republican challenger 11 Alan Wheat Democratic candidate 12 John Ashcroft Republican candidate 29 Christopher Bond Republican -- term not up 57 Mel Carnahan Democratic -- term not up Missouri 09 33 Harold L. Volkmer Democratic incumbent 36 Rick Hardy Republican challenger 11 Alan Wheat Democratic candidate 12 John Ashcroft Republican candidate 29 Christopher Bond Republican -- term not up 57 Mel Carnahan Democratic -- term not up North Carolina 01 33 Eva Clayton Democratic incumbent 36 Ted Tyler Republican challenger 18 Jesse Helms Republican -- term not up 28 Lauch Faircloth Republican -- term not up 57 James B. Hunt, Jr. Democratic -- term not up North Carolina 05 31 A.P. "Sandy" Sands Democratic candidate 32 Richard Burr Republican candidate 18 Jesse Helms Republican -- term not up 28 Lauch Faircloth Republican -- term not up 57 James B. Hunt, Jr. Democratic -- term not up North Carolina 07 33 Charlie Rose Democratic incumbent 36 Robert C. Anderson Republican challenger 18 Jesse Helms Republican -- term not up 28 Lauch Faircloth Republican -- term not up 57 James B. Hunt, Jr. Democratic -- term not up North Carolina 08 33 W.G. "Bill" Hefner Democratic incumbent 36 Sherrill Morgan Republican challenger 18 Jesse Helms Republican -- term not up 28 Lauch Faircloth Republican -- term not up 57 James B. Hunt, Jr. Democratic -- term not up North Carolina 09 31 Rory Blake Democratic candidate 32 Sue Myrick Republican candidate 18 Jesse Helms Republican -- term not up 28 Lauch Faircloth Republican -- term not up 57 James B. Hunt, Jr. Democratic -- term not up Nebraska 01 35 Patrick Combs Democratic challenger 34 Doug Bereuter Republican incumbent 13 Bob Kerrey Democratic incumbent 16 Jan Stoney Republican challenger 19 J. James Exon Democratic -- term not up 53 Ben Nelson Democratic incumbent 56 Gene Spence Republican challenger New Hampshire 01 35 Bill Verge Democratic challenger 34 Bill Zeliff Republican incumbent 18 Bob Smith Republican -- term not up 28 Judd Gregg Republican -- term not up 55 Wayne D. King Democratic challenger 54 Stephen Merrill Republican incumbent New Hampshire 02 33 Dick Swett Democratic incumbent 36 Charles Bass Republican challenger 18 Bob Smith Republican -- term not up 28 Judd Gregg Republican -- term not up 55 Wayne D. King Democratic challenger 54 Stephen Merrill Republican incumbent New Jersey 01 33 Robert E. Andrews Democratic incumbent 36 James N. Hogan Republican challenger 13 Frank R. Lautenberg Democratic incumbent 16 Garabed "Chuck" Hayt Republican challenger 19 Bill Bradley Democratic -- term not up 58 Christine Todd Republican --term not up Whitman New Jersey 02 31 Louis N. Magazzu Democratic candidate 32 Frank A. LoBiondo Republican candidate 13 Frank R. Lautenberg Democratic incumbent 16 Garabed "Chuck" Hayt Republican challenger 19 Bill Bradley Democratic -- term not up 58 Christine Todd Republican --term not up Whitman New Jersey 05 35 Bill Auer Democratic challenger 34 Marge Roukema Republican incumbent 13 Frank R. Lautenberg Democratic incumbent 16 Garabed "Chuck" Hayt Republican challenger 19 Bill Bradley Democratic -- term not up 58 Christine Todd Republican --term not up Whitman New Jersey 07 35 Karen Carroll Democratic challenger 34 Bob Franks Republican incumbent 13 Frank R. Lautenberg Democratic incumbent 16 Garabed "Chuck" Hayt Republican challenger 19 Bill Bradley Democratic -- term not up 58 Christine Todd Republican --term not up Whitman New Jersey 09 33 Robert G. Torricelli Democratic incumbent 36 Peter J. Russo Republican challenger 13 Frank R. Lautenberg Democratic incumbent 16 Garabed "Chuck" Hayt Republican challenger 19 Bill Bradley Democratic -- term not up 58 Christine Todd Republican --term not up Whitman New Jersey 10 33 Donald M. Payne Democratic incumbent 36 Jim Ford Republican challenger 13 Frank R. Lautenberg Democratic incumbent 16 Garabed "Chuck" Hayt Republican challenger 19 Bill Bradley Democratic -- term not up 58 Christine Todd Republican --term not up Whitman New Jersey 11 31 Frank Herbert Democratic candidate 32 Rodney P. Frelinghuy Republican candidate 13 Frank R. Lautenberg Democratic incumbent 16 Garabed "Chuck" Hayt Republican challenger 19 Bill Bradley Democratic -- term not up 58 Christine Todd Republican --term not up Whitman New Jersey 13 33 Robert Menendez Democratic incumbent 36 Fernando A. Alonso Republican challenger 13 Frank R. Lautenberg Democratic incumbent 16 Garabed "Chuck" Hayt Republican challenger 19 Bill Bradley Democratic -- term not up 58 Christine Todd Whitman Republican --term not up New York 01 33 George J. Hochbrueck Democratic incumbent 36 Michael Forbes Republican challenger 13 Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democratic incumbent 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 02 35 James Manfre Democratic challenger 34 Rick A. Lazio Republican incumbent 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 03 35 Norma Grill Democratic challenger 34 Peter T. King Republican incumbent 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 04 31 Ferne Steckler Democratic candidate 32 Daniel Frisa Republican candidate 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 05 33 Gary Ackerman Democratic incumbent 36 Grant M. Lally Republican challenger 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 06 33 Floyd H. Flake Democratic incumbent 36 Denny D. Bhagwandin Republican challenger 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 07 33 Thomas J. Manton Democratic incumbent 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 08 33 Jerrold Nadler Democratic incumbent 36 David Askren Republican challenger 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 10 33 Edolphus Towns Democratic incumbent 36 Amelia Smith Parker Republican challenger 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 11 33 Major R. Owens Democratic incumbent 36 Gary S. Popkin Republican challenger 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 14 33 Carolyn B. Maloney Democratic incumbent 36 Charles Millard Republican challenger 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 16 33 Jose E. Serrano Democratic incumbent 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 17 33 Eliot L. Engel Democratic incumbent 36 Edward T. Marshall Republican challenger 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 18 33 Nita M. Lowey Democratic incumbent 36 Andrew C. Hartzell, Republican challenger 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 19 31 Sue W. Kelly Democratic candidate 32 Hamilton Fish, Jr. Republican candidate 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 27 35 William A. Long Jr. Democratic challenger 34 Bill Paxon Republican incumbent 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 29 33 John J. LaFalce Democratic incumbent 36 William E. Miller Republican challenger 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 30 35 David Franczyk Democratic challenger 34 Jack Quinn Republican incumbent 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger New York 31 34 Amo Houghton Republican incumbent 13 Daniel Patrick Democratic incumbent Moynihan 16 Bernadette Castro Republican challenger 29 Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican -- term not up 53 Mario M. Cuomo Democratic incumbent 56 George E. Pataki Republican challenger Ohio 03 33 Tony P. Hall Democratic incumbent 36 David A. Westbrock Republican challenger 11 Joel Hyatt Democratic candidate 12 Mike DeWine Republican candidate 19 John H. Glenn, Jr. Democratic -- term not up 55 Robert L. Burch, Jr Democratic challenger 54 George V. Voinovich Republican incumbent Ohio 07 34 David L. Hobson Republican incumbent 11 Joel Hyatt Democratic candidate 12 Mike DeWine Republican candidate 19 John H. Glenn, Jr. Democratic -- term not up 55 Robert L. Burch, Jr Democratic challenger 54 George V. Voinovich Republican incumbent Ohio 08 34 John Andrew Boehner Republican incumbent 11 Joel Hyatt Democratic candidate 12 Mike DeWine Republican candidate 19 John H. Glenn, Jr. Democratic -- term not up 55 Robert L. Burch, Jr Democratic challenger 54 George V. Voinovich Republican incumbent Ohio 18 31 Greg L. DiDonato Democratic candidate 32 Bob Ney Republican candidate 11 Joel Hyatt Democratic candidate 12 Mike DeWine Republican candidate 19 John H. Glenn, Jr. Democratic -- term not up 55 Robert L. Burch, Jr Democratic challenger 54 George V. Voinovich Republican incumbent Oklahoma 01 31 Stuart Price Democratic candidate 32 Steve Largent Republican candidate 11 Dave McCurdy Democratic candidate 12 James Inhofe Republican candidate 29 Don Nickles Republican -- term not up 51 Jack Mildren Democratic candidate 52 Frank Keating Republican candidate Oklahoma 02 31 Virgil R. Cooper Democratic candidate 32 Tom Coburn Republican candidate 11 Dave McCurdy Democratic candidate 12 James Inhofe Republican candidate 29 Don Nickles Republican -- term not up 51 Jack Mildren Democratic candidate 52 Frank Keating Republican candidate Oklahoma 02 31 Virgil R. Cooper Democratic candidate 32 Tom Coburn Republican candidate 11 Dave McCurdy Democratic candidate 12 James Inhofe Republican candidate 29 Don Nickles Republican -- term not up 51 Jack Mildren Democratic candidate 52 Frank Keating Republican candidate Oregon 01 33 Elizabeth Furse Democratic incumbent 36 Bill Witt Republican challenger 18 Mark O. Hatfield Republican -- term not up 28 Bob Packwood Republican -- term not up 51 John Kitzhaber Democratic candidate 52 Denny Smith Republican candidate Oregon 03 33 Ron Wyden Democratic incumbent 36 Everett Hall Republican challenger 18 Mark O. Hatfield Republican -- term not up 28 Bob Packwood Republican -- term not up 51 John Kitzhaber Democratic candidate 52 Denny Smith Republican candidate Oregon 04 33 Peter A. DeFazio Democratic incumbent 36 John D. Newkirk Republican challenger 18 Mark O. Hatfield Republican -- term not up 28 Bob Packwood Republican -- term not up 51 John Kitzhaber Democratic candidate 52 Denny Smith Republican candidate Pennsylvania 01 33 Thomas M. Foglietta Democratic incumbent 36 Roger Gordon Republican challenger 13 Harris Wofford Democratic incumbent 16 Rick Santorum Republican challenger 29 Arlen Specter Republican -- term not up 51 Mark Singel Democratic candidate 52 Tom Ridge Republican candidate Pennsylvania 02 31 Chaka Fattah Democratic candidate 32 Lawrence R. Watson Republican candidate 13 Harris Wofford Democratic incumbent 16 Rick Santorum Republican challenger 29 Arlen Specter Republican -- term not up 51 Mark Singel Democratic candidate 52 Tom Ridge Republican candidate Pennsylvania 08 35 John P. Murray Democratic challenger 34 James C. Greenwood Republican incumbent 13 Harris Wofford Democratic incumbent 16 Rick Santorum Republican challenger 29 Arlen Specter Republican -- term not up 51 Mark Singel Democratic candidate 52 Tom Ridge Republican candidate Pennsylvania 12 33 John P. Murtha Democratic incumbent 36 Bill Choby Republican challenger 13 Harris Wofford Democratic incumbent 16 Rick Santorum Republican challenger 29 Arlen Specter Republican -- term not up 51 Mark Singel Democratic candidate 52 Tom Ridge Republican candidate Pennsylvania 13 33 Marjorie Margolies-M Democratic incumbent 36 Jon D. Fox Republican challenger 13 Harris Wofford Democratic incumbent 16 Rick Santorum Republican challenger 29 Arlen Specter Republican -- term not up 51 Mark Singel Democratic candidate 52 Tom Ridge Republican candidate Pennsylvania 14 33 William J. Coyne Democratic incumbent 36 John Robert Clark Republican challenger 13 Harris Wofford Democratic incumbent 16 Rick Santorum Republican challenger 29 Arlen Specter Republican -- term not up 51 Mark Singel Democratic candidate 52 Tom Ridge Republican candidate Pennsylvania 17 34 George W. Gekas Republican incumbent 13 Harris Wofford Democratic incumbent 16 Rick Santorum Republican challenger 29 Arlen Specter Republican -- term not up 51 Mark Singel Democratic candidate 52 Tom Ridge Republican candidate Pennsylvania 18 31 Mike Doyle Democratic candidate 32 John McCarty Republican candidate 13 Harris Wofford Democratic incumbent 16 Rick Santorum Republican challenger 29 Arlen Specter Republican -- term not up 51 Mark Singel Democratic candidate 52 Tom Ridge Republican candidate South Dakota AL 33 Tim Johnson Democratic incumbent 36 Jan Berkhout Republican challenger 17 Thomas Daschle Democratic -- term not up 18 Larry Pressler Republican -- term not up 51 Jim Beddow Democratic candidate 52 William J. Janklow Republican candidate Tennessee 02 34 John J. "Jimmy" Duncan Republican incumbent 13 Jim Sasser Democratic incumbent 16 Bill Frist Republican challenger 11a Jim Cooper Democratic candidate 12a Fred Thompson Republican candidate 51 Phil Bredesen Democratic candidate 52 Don Sundquist Republican candidate Tennessee 03 31 Randy Button Democratic candidate 32 Zach Wamp Republican candidate 13 Jim Sasser Democratic incumbent 16 Bill Frist Republican challenger 11a Jim Cooper Democratic candidate 12a Fred Thompson Republican candidate 51 Phil Bredesen Democratic candidate 52 Don Sundquist Republican candidate Tennessee 04 31 Jeff Whorley Democratic candidate 32 Van Hilleary Republican candidate 13 Jim Sasser Democratic incumbent 16 Bill Frist Republican challenger 11a Jim Cooper Democratic candidate 12a Fred Thompson Republican candidate 51 Phil Bredesen Democratic candidate 52 Don Sundquist Republican candidate Tennessee 05 33 Bob Clement Democratic incumbent 36 John Osborne Republican challenger 13 Jim Sasser Democratic incumbent 16 Bill Frist Republican challenger 11a Jim Cooper Democratic candidate 12a Fred Thompson Republican candidate 51 Phil Bredesen Democratic candidate 52 Don Sundquist Republican candidate Texas 01 33 Jim Chapman Democratic incumbent 36 Mike Blankenship Republican challenger 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 03 34 Sam Johnson Republican incumbent 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 06 35 Terry Jesmore Democratic challenger 34 Joe L. Barton Republican incumbent 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Hutchinson Republican incumbent 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 07 34 Bill Archer Republican incumbent 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 08 34 Jack Fields Republican incumbent 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 09 33 Jack Brooks Democratic incumbent 36 Steve Stockman Republican challenger 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 11 33 Chet Edwards Democratic incumbent 36 Jim Broyles Republican challenger 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Hutchinson Republican incumbent 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 12 33 Pete Geren Democratic incumbent 36 Ernest J. Anderson Republican challenger 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 13 33 Bill Sarpalius Democratic incumbent 36 William M. "Mac" Republican challenger Thornberry 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 14 33 Greg Laughlin Democratic incumbent 36 Jim Deats Republican challenger 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 15 33 E. "Kika" de la Garza Democratic incumbent 36 Tom Haughey Republican challenger 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 18 31 Sheila Jackson Lee Democratic candidate 32 Jerry Burley Republican candidate 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 21 34 Lamar Smith Republican incumbent 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 25 31 Ken Bentsen Democratic candidate 32 Gene Fontenot Republican candidate 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 26 35 LeEarl Ann Bryant Democratic challenger 34 Dick Armey Republican incumbent 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Hutchinson Republican incumbent 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 29 33 Gene Green Democratic incumbent 36 Harold "Oilman" Eide Republican challenger 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Texas 30 33 Eddie Bernice Johnson Democratic incumbent 36 Lucy Cain Republican challenger 15 Richard Fisher Democratic challenger 14 Kay Bailey Republican incumbent Hutchinson 29 Phil Gramm Republican -- term not up 53 Ann W. Richards Democratic incumbent 56 George W. Bush Republican challenger Utah 02 33 Karen Shepherd Democratic incumbent 36 Enid Greene Waldholt Republican challenger 15 Patrick A. Shea Democratic challenger 14 Orrin G. Hatch Republican incumbent 29 Robert F. Bennett Republican -- term not up 58 Micheal O. Leavitt Republican --term not up Virginia 01 35 Mary Sinclair Democratic challenger 34 Herb Bateman Republican incumbent 13 Charles S. Robb Democratic incumbent 16 Oliver North Republican challenger 29 John W. Warner Republican -- term not up 26 J. Marshall Coleman Independent challenger 58 George F. Allen Republican --term not up Virginia 03 33 Robert C. (Bobby) Sc Democratic incumbent 36 Tom Ward Republican challenger 13 Charles S. Robb Democratic incumbent 16 Oliver North Republican challenger 29 John W. Warner Republican -- term not up 26 J. Marshall Coleman Independent challenger 58 George F. Allen Republican --term not up Virginia 04 33 Norman Sisisky Democratic incumbent 36 George Sweet Republican challenger 13 Charles S. Robb Democratic incumbent 16 Oliver North Republican challenger 29 John W. Warner Republican -- term not up 26 J. Marshall Coleman Independent challenger 58 George F. Allen Republican --term not up Virginia 07 35 Gerald Berg Democratic challenger 34 Thomas J. Bliley, Jr Republican incumbent 13 Charles S. Robb Democratic incumbent 16 Oliver North Republican challenger 29 John W. Warner Republican -- term not up 26 J. Marshall Coleman Independent challenger 58 George F. Allen Republican --term not up Virginia 08 33 James P. Moran, Jr. Demcratic incumbent 34 Kyle McSlarrow Republican challenger 13 Charles S. Robb Democratic incumbent 16 Oliver North Republican challenger 29 John W. Warner Republican -- term not up 26 J. Marshall Coleman Independent challenger 58 George F. Allen Republican --term not up Virginia 09 33 Rick Boucher Democratic incumbent 34 Steve Fast Republican challenger 13 Charles S. Robb Democratic incumbent 16 Oliver North Republican challenger 29 John W. Warner Republican -- term not up 26 J. Marshall Coleman Independent challenger 58 George F. Allen Republican --term not up Virginia 10 30 Alan Ogden Independent challenger 34 Frank R. Wolf Republican incumbent 13 Charles S. Robb Democratic incumbent 16 Oliver North Republican challenger 29 John W. Warner Republican -- term not up 26 J. Marshall Coleman Independent challenger 58 George F. Allen Republican --term not up Washington 01 33 Maria Cantwell Democratic incumbent 36 Rick White Republican challenger 15 Ron Sims Democratic challenger 14 Slade Gorton Republican incumbent 19 Patty Murray Democratic -- term not up 57 Michael Lowry Democratic -- term not up Washington 02 31 Harriet A. Spanel Democratic candidate 32 Jack Metcalf Republican candidate 15 Ron Sims Democratic challenger 14 Slade Gorton Republican incumbent 19 Patty Murray Democratic -- term not up 57 Michael Lowry Democratic -- term not up Washington 07 33 Jim McDermott Democratic incumbent 36 Keith Harris Republican challenger 15 Ron Sims Democratic challenger 14 Slade Gorton Republican incumbent 19 Patty Murray Democratic -- term not up 57 Michael Lowry Democratic -- term not up Washington 08 35 Jim Wyrick Democratic challenger 34 Jennifer Dunn Republican incumbent 15 Ron Sims Democratic challenger 14 Slade Gorton Republican incumbent 19 Patty Murray Democratic -- term not up 57 Michael Lowry Democratic -- term not up Washington 09 33 Mike Kriedler Democratic incumbent 36 Randy Tate Republican challenger 15 Ron Sims Democratic challenger 14 Slade Gorton Republican incumbent 19 Patty Murray Democratic -- term not up 57 Michael Lowry Democratic -- term not up Wisconsin 01 33 Peter W. Barca Democratic incumbent 36 Mark W. Neumann Republican challenger 13 Herb Kohl Democratic incumbent 16 Robert T. Welch Republican challenger 19 Russell Feingold Democratic -- term not up 55 Chuck Chvala Democratic challenger 54 Tommy G. Thompson Republican incumbent Wisconsin 04 33 Gerald D. Kleczka Democratic incumbent 36 Tom Reynolds Republican challenger 13 Herb Kohl Democratic incumbent 16 Robert T. Welch Republican challenger 19 Russell Feingold Democratic -- term not up 55 Chuck Chvala Democratic challenger 54 Tommy G. Thompson Republican incumbent Wisconsin 05 33 Thomas M. Barrett Democratic incumbent 36 Stephen B. Hollingsh Republican challenger 13 Herb Kohl Democratic incumbent 16 Robert T. Welch Republican challenger 19 Russell Feingold Democratic -- term not up 55 Chuck Chvala Democratic challenger 54 Tommy G. Thompson Republican incumbent Wisconsin 09 34 F. James Sensenbrenner Republican incumbent 13 Herb Kohl Democratic incumbent 16 Robert T. Welch Republican challenger 19 Russell Feingold Democratic -- term not up 55 Chuck Chvala Democratic challenger 54 Tommy G. Thompson Republican incumbent West Virginia 01 33 Alan B. Mollohan Democratic incumbent 36 Sally Rossy Riley Republican challenger 13 Robert C. Byrd Democratic incumbent 16 Stan Klos Republican challenger 19 John D. Rockefeller Democratic -- term not up 57 Gaston Caperton Democratic -- term not up Wyoming 01 31 Bob Schuster Democratic candidate 32 Barbara Cubin Republican candidate 11 Mike Sullivan Democratic candidate 12 Craig Thomas Republican candidate 29 Alan Simpson Republican -- term not up 51 Kathy Karpan Democratic candidate 52 Jim Geringer Republican candidate >> 1992 CANDIDATE LISTS AND BALLOT CARDS STATE: Alabama CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Richard C. Shelby Democratic incumbent 16. Richard Sellers Republican challenger 19. Howell T. Heflin Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Glen Browder Democratic incumbent 36. Don Sledge Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Alabama CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Richard C. Shelby Democratic incumbent 16. Richard Sellers Republican challenger 19. Howell T. Heflin Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Tom Bevill Democratic incumbent 36. Mickey Strickland Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Alabama CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Richard C. Shelby Democratic incumbent 16. Richard Sellers Republican challenger 19. Howell T. Heflin Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Ben Erdreich Democratic incumbent 36. Spencer Bachus Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Alabama CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Richard C. Shelby Democratic incumbent 16. Richard Sellers Republican challenger 19. Howell T. Heflin Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Earl F. Hilliard Democratic candidate 32. Kervin Jones Republican candidate 41. Claude Harris Jr. Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Arizona CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Claire Sargent Democratic challenger 14. John McCain Republican incumbent 19. Dennis DeConcini Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Sam Coppersmith Democratic challenger 34. John "Jay" Rhodes Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Arizona CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Claire Sargent Democratic challenger 14. John McCain Republican incumbent 19. Dennis DeConcini Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Ed Pastor Democratic candidate 32. Don Shooter Republican candidate 41. Morris K. Udall Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Arizona CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Claire Sargent Democratic challenger 14. John McCain Republican incumbent 19. Dennis DeConcini Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Roger Hartstone Democratic challenger 34. Bob Stump Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Arizona CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Claire Sargent Democratic challenger 14. John McCain Republican incumbent 19. Dennis DeConcini Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Walter Mybeck Democratic challenger 34. Jon Kyl Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Arizona CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Claire Sargent Democratic challenger 14. John McCain Republican incumbent 19. Dennis DeConcini Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Karan English Democratic candidate 32. Doug Wead Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: Arkansas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Dale Bumpers Democratic incumbent 16. Mike Huckabee Republican challenger 19. David Pryor Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Blanche Lambert Democratic candidate 32. Terry Hayes Republican candidate 41. Bill Alexander Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Arkansas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Dale Bumpers Democratic incumbent 16. Mike Huckabee Republican challenger 19. David Pryor Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Bill McCuen Democratic candidate 32. Jay Dickey Republican candidate 41. Beryl Anthony Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Patricia Malberg Democratic challenger 34. John T. Doolittle Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Lynn Woolsey Democratic candidate 32. Bill Filante Republican candidate 41. Barbara Boxer Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. George Miller Democratic incumbent 36. Dave Scholl Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 08 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Nancy Pelosi Democratic incumbent 36. Marc Wolin Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 09 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Ronald V. Dellums Democratic incumbent 36. Billy Hunter Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 10 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Wendell H. Williams Democratic candidate 32. Bill Baker Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 12 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Tom Lantos Democratic incumbent 36. Jim Tomlin Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 13 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Pete Stark Democratic incumbent 36. Verne Teyler Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 19 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Richard H. Lehman Democratic incumbent 36. Tal L. Cloud Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 24 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Anthony C. Beilenson Democratic incumbent 36. Tom McClintock Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 26 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Howard L. Berman Democratic incumbent 36. Gary Forsch Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 27 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Doug Kahn Democratic challenger 34. Carlos J. Moorhead Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 28 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Al Wachtel Democratic challenger 34. David Dreier Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 29 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Henry A. Waxman Democratic incumbent 36. Mark A. Robbins Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 31 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Matthew G. Martinez Democratic incumbent 36. Reuben D. Franco Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 32 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Julian C. Dixon Democratic incumbent ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 33 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Lucille Roybal-Allard Democratic candidate 32. Robert Guzman Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 34 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Esteban E. Torres Democratic incumbent 36. J. "Jay" Hernandez Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 35 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Maxine Waters Democratic incumbent 36. Nate Truman Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 36 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Jane Harman Democratic candidate 32. Joan Milke Flores Republican candidate 41. Mel Levine Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 38 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Evan Anderson Braude Democratic candidate 32. Steve Horn Republican candidate 41. Glenn M. Anderson Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 39 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Molly McClanahan Democratic candidate 32. Ed Royce Republican candidate 42. William E. Dannemeyer Republican--retiring ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 40 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Donald M. Rusk Democratic challenger 34. Jerry L. Lewis Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 41 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Bob Baker Democratic candidate 32. Jay C. Kim Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 42 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. George E. Brown Jr. Democratic incumbent 36. Richard B. Rutan Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 43 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Mark A. Takano Democratic candidate 32. Ken Calvert Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 44 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Georgia Smith Democratic challenger 34. Al McCandless Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 45 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Patricia McCabe Democratic challenger 34. Dana Rohrabacher Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 46 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Robert John Banuelos Democratic challenger 34. Robert K. Dornan Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 47 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. John F. Anwiller Democratic challenger 34. C. Christopher Cox Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: California CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 48 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Barbara Boxer Democratic candidate 12. Bruce Herschensohn Republican candidate 11a. Dianne Feinstein Democratic candidate 14a. John Seymour Republican incumbent (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Michael Farber Democratic challenger 34. Ron Packard Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Colorado CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Ben Nighthorse Campbell Democratic candidate 12. Terry Considine Republican candidate 29. Hank Brown Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Patricia Schroeder Democratic incumbent 36. Raymond Diaz Aragon Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Colorado CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Ben Nighthorse Campbell Democratic candidate 12. Terry Considine Republican candidate 29. Hank Brown Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. David E. Skaggs Democratic incumbent 36. Brian Day Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Colorado CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Ben Nighthorse Campbell Democratic candidate 12. Terry Considine Republican candidate 29. Hank Brown Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Tom Kolbe Democratic challenger 34. Dan Schaefer Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Connecticut CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Christopher J. Dodd Democratic incumbent 16. Brooks Johnson Republican challenger 19. Joseph I. Lieberman Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Rosa DeLauro Democratic incumbent 36. Tom Scott Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Florida CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Bob Graham Democratic incumbent 16. Bill Grant Republican challenger 29. Connie Mack III Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Corrine Brown Democratic candidate 32. Don Weidner Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: Florida CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Bob Graham Democratic incumbent 16. Bill Grant Republican challenger 29. Connie Mack III Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Mattox Hair Democratic candidate 32. Tillie Fowler Republican candidate 41. Charles E. Bennett Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Florida CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Bob Graham Democratic incumbent 16. Bill Grant Republican challenger 29. Connie Mack III Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Phil Denton Democratic challenger 34. Cliff Stearns Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Florida CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 12 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Bob Graham Democratic incumbent 16. Bill Grant Republican challenger 29. Connie Mack III Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Tom Mims Democratic candidate 32. Charles T. Canady Republican candidate 42. Andy Ireland Republican--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Florida CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 17 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Bob Graham Democratic incumbent 16. Bill Grant Republican challenger 29. Connie Mack III Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Carrie Meek Democratic candidate 41. William Lehman Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Florida CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 18 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Bob Graham Democratic incumbent 16. Bill Grant Republican challenger 29. Connie Mack III Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Magda Montiel Davis Democratic challenger 34. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Florida CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 20 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Bob Graham Democratic incumbent 16. Bill Grant Republican challenger 29. Connie Mack III Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Peter Deutsch Democratic candidate 32. Beverly Kennedy Republican candidate 41. Dante B. Fascell Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Florida CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 21 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Bob Graham Democratic incumbent 16. Bill Grant Republican challenger 29. Connie Mack III Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 32. Lincoln Diaz-Balart Republican candidate 41. Larry Smith Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Florida CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 22 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Bob Graham Democratic incumbent 16. Bill Grant Republican challenger 29. Connie Mack III Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Gwen Margolis Democratic challenger 34. E. Clay Shaw Jr. Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Georgia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Wyche Fowler Democratic incumbent 16. Paul Coverdell Republican challenger 19. Sam Nunn Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Barbara Christmas Democratic candidate 32. Jack Kingston Republican candidate 41. Lindsay Thomas Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Georgia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Wyche Fowler Democratic incumbent 16. Paul Coverdell Republican challenger 19. Sam Nunn Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Sanford Bishop Democratic candidate 32. Jim Dudley Republican candidate 41. Charles Hatcher Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Georgia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Wyche Fowler Democratic incumbent 16. Paul Coverdell Republican challenger 19. Sam Nunn Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Richard Ray Democratic incumbent 36. Mac Collins Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Georgia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Wyche Fowler Democratic incumbent 16. Paul Coverdell Republican challenger 19. Sam Nunn Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Cathey Steinberg Democratic candidate 32. John Linder Republican candidate 41. Ben Jones Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Georgia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 05 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Wyche Fowler Democratic incumbent 16. Paul Coverdell Republican challenger 19. Sam Nunn Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. John Lewis Democratic incumbent 36. Paul R. Stabler Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Georgia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Wyche Fowler Democratic incumbent 16. Paul Coverdell Republican challenger 19. Sam Nunn Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. George "Buddy" Darden Democratic incumbent 36. Al Beverly Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Iowa CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Jean Lloyd-Jones Democratic challenger 14. Charles E. Grassley Republican incumbent 19. Tom Harkin Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Neal Smith Democratic incumbent 36. Paul Lunde Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Bobby L. Rush Democratic candidate 32. Jay Walker Republican candidate 41. Charles A. Hayes Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Mel Reynolds Democratic candidate 32. Ron Blackstone Republican candidate 41. Gus Savage Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. William O. Lipinski Democratic incumbent 36. Harry C. Lepinske Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 05 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Dan Rostenkowski Democratic incumbent 36. Elias R. Zenkich Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Barry W. Watkins Democratic challenger 34. Henry J. Hyde Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Cardiss Collins Democratic incumbent 36. Norman Boccio Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 09 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Sidney R. Yates Democratic incumbent 36. Herb Sohn Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 10 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Michael Kennedy Democratic challenger 34. John Porter Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 11 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. George E. Sangmeister Democratic incumbent 36. Robert T. Herbolsheimer Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 12 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Jerry F. Costello Democratic incumbent 36. Mike Starr Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 13 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Dennis Temple Democratic challenger 34. Harris W. Fawell Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Illinois CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 14 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Carol Moseley Braun Democratic candidate 12. Richard Williamson Republican candidate 19. Paul Simon Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Jonathan Abram Reich Democratic challenger 34. Dennis Hastert Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Indiana CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Joseph H. Hogsett Democratic challenger 14. Daniel R. Coats Republican incumbent 29. Richard G. Lugar Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Philip R. Sharp Democratic incumbent 36. William G. Frazier Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Indiana CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Joseph H. Hogsett Democratic challenger 14. Daniel R. Coats Republican incumbent 29. Richard G. Lugar Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Jill L. Long Democratic incumbent 36. Charles W. Pierson Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Iowa CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Jean Lloyd-Jones Democratic challenger 14. Charles E. Grassley Republican incumbent 19. Tom Harkin Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Elaine Baxter Democratic challenger 34. Jim Ross Lightfoot Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Kansas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Gloria O'Dell Democratic challenger 14. Robert Dole Republican incumbent 29. Nancy Landon Kassebaum Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Duane West Democratic challenger 34. Pat Roberts Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Kansas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Gloria O'Dell Democratic challenger 14. Robert Dole Republican incumbent 29. Nancy Landon Kassebaum Republican--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Tom Love Democratic challenger 34. Jan Meyers Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Louisiana CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. John B. Breaux Democratic incumbent 16. Lyle Stockstill Republican challenger 19. J. Bennett Johnston Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Richard H. Baker Republican incumbent 32. Clyde C. Holloway Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Maryland CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic incumbent 16. Alan L. Keyes Republican challenger 19. Paul S. Sarbanes Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Michael C. Hickey Jr. Democratic challenger 34. Helen Delich Bentley Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Maryland CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic incumbent 16. Alan L. Keyes Republican challenger 19. Paul S. Sarbanes Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Benjamin L. Cardin Democratic incumbent 36. William T.S. Bricker Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Maryland CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic incumbent 16. Alan L. Keyes Republican challenger 19. Paul S. Sarbanes Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Albert R. Wynn Democratic candidate 32. Michele Dyson Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: Maryland CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 05 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic incumbent 16. Alan L. Keyes Republican challenger 19. Paul S. Sarbanes Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Steny H. Hoyer Democratic incumbent 36. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Maryland CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic incumbent 16. Alan L. Keyes Republican challenger 19. Paul S. Sarbanes Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Thomas H. Hattery Democratic candidate 32. Roscoe G. Bartlett Republican candidate 41. Beverly B. Byron Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Maryland CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic incumbent 16. Alan L. Keyes Republican challenger 19. Paul S. Sarbanes Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Kweisi Mfume Democratic incumbent 36. Kenneth Kondner Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Maryland CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 08 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Barbara A. Mikulski Democratic incumbent 16. Alan L. Keyes Republican challenger 19. Paul S. Sarbanes Democratic--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Edward J. Heffernan Democratic challenger 34. Constance A. Morella Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Massachusetts CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Edward M. Kennedy Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John F. Kerry Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. John Olver Democratic incumbent 36. Patrick Larkin Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Massachusetts CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Edward M. Kennedy Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John F. Kerry Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Richard Neal Democratic incumbent 36. Anthony W. Ravosa Jr. Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Massachusetts CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Edward M. Kennedy Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John F. Kerry Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Nicholas Mavroules Democratic incumbent 36. Peter Torkildsen Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Massachusetts CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Edward M. Kennedy Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John F. Kerry Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Edward J. Markey Democratic incumbent 36. Steven Sohn Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Massachusetts CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 08 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Edward M. Kennedy Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John F. Kerry Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Joseph P. Kennedy, III Democratic incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Massachusetts CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 09 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Edward M. Kennedy Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John F. Kerry Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. John Joseph Moakley Democratic incumbent 36. Martin D. Conboy Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Michigan CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Donald W. Riegle Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Carl Levin Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. John H. Miltner Democratic candidate 32. Peter Hoekstra Republican candidate 42. Guy Vander Jagt Repub.--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Michigan CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Donald W. Riegle Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Carl Levin Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Carol S. Kooistra Democratic challenger 34. Paul B. Henry Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Michigan CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Donald W. Riegle Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Carl Levin Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Lisa A. Donaldson Democratic challenger 34. Dave Camp Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Michigan CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 05 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Donald W. Riegle Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Carl Levin Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. James A. Barcia Democratic candidate 32. Keith Muxlow Republican candidate 41. Bob Traxler Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Michigan CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 09 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Donald W. Riegle Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Carl Levin Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Dale E. Kildee Democratic incumbent 36. Megan O'Neill Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Michigan CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 10 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Donald W. Riegle Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Carl Levin Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. David E. Bonior Democratic incumbent 36. Douglas Carl Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Michigan CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 11 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Donald W. Riegle Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Carl Levin Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Walter Briggs Democratic candidate 32. Joseph K. Knollenberg Republican candidate 42. William S. Broomfield Repub.--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Michigan CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 15 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Donald W. Riegle Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Carl Levin Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Barbara-Rose Collins Democratic incumbent 36. Charles C. Vincent Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Michigan CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 16 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Donald W. Riegle Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Carl Levin Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. John D. Dingell Democratic incumbent 36. Frank Beaumont Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Minnesota CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Dave Durenberger Repub.--term not up 18 SEN. #2. Paul David Wellstone Democrat--term not up 17 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Timothy J. Penny Democratic incumbent 36. Timothy R. Droogsma Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Minnesota CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Dave Durenberger Repub.--term not up 18 SEN. #2. Paul David Wellstone Democrat--term not up 17 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. David Minge Democratic candidate 32. Cal R. Ludeman Republican candidate 42. Vin Weber Repub.--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Minnesota CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Dave Durenberger Repub.--term not up 18 SEN. #2. Paul David Wellstone Democrat--term not up 17 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Bruce F. Vento Democratic incumbent 36. Ian Maitland Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Minnesota CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Dave Durenberger Repub.--term not up 18 SEN. #2. Paul David Wellstone Democrat--term not up 17 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Gerry Sikorski Democratic incumbent 36. Rod Grams Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Missouri CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Geri Rothman-Serot Democratic challenger 14. Christopher S. (Kit) Bond Republican incumbent 29. John C. Danforth Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. William L. Clay Democratic incumbent 36. Arthur S. Montgomery Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Missouri CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Geri Rothman-Serot Democratic challenger 14. Christopher S. (Kit) Bond Republican incumbent 29. John C. Danforth Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Joan Kelly Horn Democratic incumbent 36. James M. Talent Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Missouri CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Geri Rothman-Serot Democratic challenger 14. Christopher S. (Kit) Bond Republican incumbent 29. John C. Danforth Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Richard A. Gephardt Democratic incumbent 36. Mack Holekamp Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Missouri CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 05 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Geri Rothman-Serot Democratic challenger 14. Christopher S. (Kit) Bond Republican incumbent 29. John C. Danforth Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Alan Wheat Democratic incumbent 36. Edward "Gomer" Moody Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Missouri CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Geri Rothman-Serot Democratic challenger 14. Christopher S. (Kit) Bond Republican incumbent 29. John C. Danforth Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Pat Danner Democratic challenger 34. Tom Coleman Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Nebraska CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Robert Kerrey Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. J. James Exon Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Gerry Finnegan Democratic challenger 34. Doug Bereuter Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: New Hampshire CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. John Rauh Democratic candidate 12. Judd Gregg Republican candidate 29. Bob Smith Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Bob Preston Democratic challenger 34. Bill Zeliff Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: New Jersey CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Frank R. Lautenberg Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Bill Bradley Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Robert E. Andrews Democratic incumbent 36. Lee A. Solomon Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: New Jersey CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Frank R. Lautenberg Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Bill Bradley Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. William J. Hughes Democratic incumbent 36. Frank A. LoBiondo Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: New Jersey CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 05 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Frank R. Lautenberg Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Bill Bradley Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Frank R. Lucas Democratic challenger 34. Marge Roukema Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: New Jersey CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Frank R. Lautenberg Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Bill Bradley Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Leonard R. Sendelsky Democratic candidate 32. Bob Franks Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: New Jersey CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 10 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Frank R. Lautenberg Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Bill Bradley Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Donald M. Payne Democratic incumbent 36. Alfred D. Palermo Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: New Jersey CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 11 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Frank R. Lautenberg Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Bill Bradley Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Ona Spiridellis Democratic challenger 34. Dean A. Gallo Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Thomas J. Downey Democratic incumbent 36. Rick A. Lazio Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Steve A. Orlins Democratic candidate 32. Peter T. King Republican candidate 41. Robert S. Mrazek Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Philip Schiliro Democratic candidate 32. David Levy Republican candidate 42. Norman F. Lent Repub.--retiring ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 05 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Gary L. Ackerman Democratic incumbent 36. Allan E. Binder Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Floyd H. Flake Democratic incumbent 36. Dianand D. Bhagwandin Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Thomas J. Manton Democratic incumbent 36. Dennis Shea Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 08 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Jerrold Nadler Democratic candidate 32. David Askren Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 09 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Charles E. Schumer Democratic incumbent ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 10 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Edolphus Towns Democratic incumbent ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 11 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Major R. Owens Democratic incumbent ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 14 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Carolyn Maloney Democratic challenger 34. Bill Green Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 16 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Jose E. Serrano Democratic incumbent 36. Michael Walters Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 17 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Eliot L. Engel Democratic incumbent 36. Martin Richman Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 19 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Neil McCarthy Democratic challenger 34. Hamilton Fish, Jr. Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 20 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Jonathan L. Levine Democratic challenger 34. Benjamin A. Gilman Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 27 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. W. Douglas Call Democratic challenger 34. Bill Paxon Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 29 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. John J. LaFalce Democratic incumbent 36. William E. Miller Jr. Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 30 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Dennis Gorski Democratic candidate 32. Jack Quinn Republican candidate 41. Henry J. Nowak Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: New York CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 31 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Robert Abrams Democratic challenger 14. Alfonse M. D'Amato Republican incumbent 19. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Joseph P. Leahey Democratic challenger 34. Amo Houghton Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: North Carolina CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Terry Sanford Democratic incumbent 16. Lauch Faircloth Republican challenger 29. Jesse A. Helms Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Charlie Rose Democratic incumbent 36. Robert C. Anderson Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: North Carolina CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 08 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. Terry Sanford Democratic incumbent 16. Lauch Faircloth Republican challenger 29. Jesse A. Helms Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. W.G. "Bill" Hefner Democratic incumbent 36. Coy C. Privette Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Ohio CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. John H. Glenn Democratic incumbent 16. Mike DeWine Republican challenger 19. Howard M. Metzenbaum Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Tony P. Hall Democratic incumbent 36. Peter W. Davis Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Ohio CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. John H. Glenn Democratic incumbent 16. Mike DeWine Republican challenger 19. Howard M. Metzenbaum Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Clifford S. Heskett Democratic challenger 34. David L. Hobson Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Ohio CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 08 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. John H. Glenn Democratic incumbent 16. Mike DeWine Republican challenger 19. Howard M. Metzenbaum Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Fred Sennet Democratic challenger 34. John A. Boehner Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Ohio CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 18 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 13. John H. Glenn Democratic incumbent 16. Mike DeWine Republican challenger 19. Howard M. Metzenbaum Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Douglas Applegate Democratic incumbent 36. Bill Ress Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Oregon CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Les AuCoin Democratic challenger 14. Bob Packwood Republican incumbent 29. Mark O. Hatfield Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Peter A. DeFazio Democratic incumbent 36. Richard L. Schultz Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Pennsylvania CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Lynn Yeakel Democratic challenger 14. Arlen Specter Republican incumbent 19. Harris Wofford Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Thomas M. Foglietta Democratic incumbent 36. Craig Snyder Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Pennsylvania CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Lynn Yeakel Democratic challenger 14. Arlen Specter Republican incumbent 19. Harris Wofford Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Lucien E. Blackwell Democratic incumbent 36. Larry Hollin Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Pennsylvania CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Lynn Yeakel Democratic challenger 14. Arlen Specter Republican incumbent 19. Harris Wofford Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Frank Daly Democratic challenger 34. Curt Weldon Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Pennsylvania CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 08 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Lynn Yeakel Democratic challenger 14. Arlen Specter Republican incumbent 19. Harris Wofford Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Peter H. Kostmayer Democratic incumbent 36. James C. Greenwood Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Pennsylvania CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 13 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Lynn Yeakel Democratic challenger 14. Arlen Specter Republican incumbent 19. Harris Wofford Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Marjorie M. Mezvinsky Democratic candidate 32. Jon D. Fox Republican candidate 42. Lawrence Coughlin Repub.--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Pennsylvania CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 14 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Lynn Yeakel Democratic challenger 14. Arlen Specter Republican incumbent 19. Harris Wofford Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. William J. Coyne Democratic incumbent 36. Byron W. King Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Pennsylvania CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 18 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Lynn Yeakel Democratic challenger 14. Arlen Specter Republican incumbent 19. Harris Wofford Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Frank A. Pecora Democratic challenger 34. Rick Santorum Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Pennsylvania CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 20 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Lynn Yeakel Democratic challenger 14. Arlen Specter Republican incumbent 19. Harris Wofford Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Austin J. Murphy Democratic incumbent 36. Bill Townsend Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Tennessee CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. James R. (Jim) Sass Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Albert Gore Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Troy Goodale Democratic challenger 34. John J. "Jimmy" Duncan Jr. Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Tennessee CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. James R. (Jim) Sass Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Albert Gore Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Marilyn Lloyd Democratic incumbent 36. Zach Wamp Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Tennessee CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. James R. (Jim) Sass Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Albert Gore Democrat--term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Jim Cooper Democratic incumbent 36. Dale Johnson Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Texas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Lloyd Bentsen Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Phil Gramm Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 34. Sam Johnson Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Texas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 06 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Lloyd Bentsen Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Phil Gramm Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. John E. Dietrich Democratic challenger 34. Joe L. Barton Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Texas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 11 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Lloyd Bentsen Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Phil Gramm Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Chet Edwards Democratic incumbent 36. James W. Broyles Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Texas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 13 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Lloyd Bentsen Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Phil Gramm Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Bill Sarpalius Democratic incumbent 36. Beau Bolter Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Texas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 15 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Lloyd Bentsen Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Phil Gramm Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. E. "Kika" de la Garza Democratic incumbent 36. Tom Haughey Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Texas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 18 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Lloyd Bentsen Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Phil Gramm Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Craig Washington Democratic incumbent 36. Edward Blum Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Texas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 25 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Lloyd Bentsen Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Phil Gramm Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Michael A. Andrews Democratic incumbent 36. Dolly Madison McKenna Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Texas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 26 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Lloyd Bentsen Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Phil Gramm Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. John Wayne Caton Democratic challenger 34. Dick Armey Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Texas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 29 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Lloyd Bentsen Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Phil Gramm Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Gene Green Democratic candidate 32. Clark Kent Ervin Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: Texas CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 30 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Lloyd Bentsen Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. Phil Gramm Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Eddie Bernice Johnson Democratic candidate 32. Lucy Cain Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: Virginia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 03 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Charles S. Robb Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John W. Warner Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Robert C. Scott Democratic candidate 32. Daniel Jenkins Republican candidate ============================================================ STATE: Virginia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Charles S. Robb Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John W. Warner Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Norman Sisisky Democratic incumbent 36. A.J. "Tony" Zevgolis Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Virginia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Charles S. Robb Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John W. Warner Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 34. Thomas J. Bliley Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Virginia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 08 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Charles S. Robb Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John W. Warner Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. James P. Moran Jr. Democratic incumbent 36. Kyle McSlarrow Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Virginia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 09 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Charles S. Robb Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John W. Warner Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Rick Boucher Democratic incumbent 36. Gary Weddle Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Virginia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 10 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Charles S. Robb Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John W. Warner Repub.--term not up 18 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Raymond E. Vickery Jr. Democratic challenger 34. Frank R. Wolf Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Washington CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Patty Murray Democratic candidate 12. Rod Chandler Republican candidate 29. Slade Gorton Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Maria Cantwell Democratic candidate 32. Gary Nelson Republican candidate 42. John Miller Repub.--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Washington CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 02 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Patty Murray Democratic candidate 12. Rod Chandler Republican candidate 29. Slade Gorton Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Al Swift Democratic incumbent 36. Jack Metcalf Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Washington CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 07 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Patty Murray Democratic candidate 12. Rod Chandler Republican candidate 29. Slade Gorton Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Jim McDermott Democratic incumbent 36. Glenn C. Hampson Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Washington CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 08 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 11. Patty Murray Democratic candidate 12. Rod Chandler Republican candidate 29. Slade Gorton Repub.--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. George O. Tamblyn Democratic candidate 32. Jennifer Dunn Republican candidate 42. Rod Chandler Repub.--retiring ============================================================ STATE: West Virginia CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 01 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Robert C. Byrd Democrat--term not up 17 SEN. #2. John (Jay) Rockefeller IV " --term not up 27 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Alan B. Mollohan Democratic incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Wisconsin CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 04 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Russell Feingold Democratic challenger 14. Robert W. Kasten Republican incumbent 19. Herb Kohl Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 33. Gerald Kleczka Democratic incumbent 36. Joseph L. Cook Republican challenger ============================================================ STATE: Wisconsin CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 05 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Russell Feingold Democratic challenger 14. Robert W. Kasten Republican incumbent 19. Herb Kohl Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 31. Thomas Barrett Democratic candidate 32. Donalda Ann Hammersmith Republican candidate 41. Jim Moody Democrat--retiring ============================================================ STATE: Wisconsin CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 09 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: 15. Russell Feingold Democratic challenger 14. Robert W. Kasten Republican incumbent 19. Herb Kohl Democrat--term not up (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Ingrid K. Buxton Democratic challenger 34. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. Republican incumbent ============================================================ STATE: Wyoming CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 98 (A) NAMES FOR U.S. SENATE: NO SENATE RACE SEN. #1. Malcolm Wallop Repub.--term not up 18 SEN. #2. Alan K. Simpson Repub.--term not up 28 (B) NAMES FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 35. Jon Herschler Democratic challenger 34. Craig Thomas Republican incumbent 1992 SAMPLE BALLOT CARD BALLOT CARD For the November 1992 General Election ====================================== State: New York Congressional District: 14 Democratic Republican Party Party CANDIDATES FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Carolyn Maloney Bill Green CANDIDATES FOR THE U.S. SENATE: Robert Abrams Alfonse M. D'Amato >> 1994 CANDIDATE SUPPORT CODE REPUBLICAN: Presidential: 01 Incumbent Presidential candidate, Republican 03 Nonincumbent Presidential candidate, Republican Senate: 12 US Senate candidate, Republican, in race w/o incumbent 14 US Senate incumbent candidate, Republican 16 US Senate challenger candidate, Republican 18 US Senator, Republican, no race in state +++ 22 Retiring US Senator, Republican +++ 28 US Senator, Republican, no race in state +++ 29 US Senator, Republican, term not up in state w/race +++ House: 32 US House candidate, Republican, in race w/o incumbent 34 US House incumbent candidate, Republican 36 US House challenger candidate, Republican 42 Retiring US House Representative, Republican +++ Governor: 52 Gubernatorial candidate, Republican, in race w/o incumbent 54 Gubernatorial incumbent candidate, Republican 56 Gubernatorial challenger candidate, Republican 58 Governor, Republican, no race in state +++ 62 Retiring governor, Republican +++ Miscellaneous: 72 NA which candidate(s), Republican 74 Other candidate not listed above, Republican 76 Republican party DEMOCRATIC: Presidential: 02 Incumbent Presidential candidate, Democratic 04 Nonincumbent Presidential candidate, Democratic Senate: 11 US Senate candidate, Democratic, in race w/o incumbent 13 US Senate incumbent candidate, Democratic 15 US Senate challenger candidate, Democratic 17 US Senator, Democratic, no race in state +++ 19 US Senator, Democratic, term not up in state w/race +++ 21 Retiring US Senator, Democratic +++ 27 US Senator, Democratic, no race in state +++ House: 31 US House candidate, Democratic, in race w/o incumbent 33 US House incumbent candidate, Democratic 35 US House challenger candidate, Democratic 41 Retiring US House Representative, Democratic +++ Governor: 51 Gubernatorial candidate, Democratic, in race w/o incumbent 53 Gubernatorial incumbent candidate, Democratic 55 Gubernatorial challenger candidate, Democratic 57 Governor, Democratic, no race in state +++ 61 Retiring Governor, Democratic +++ Miscellaneous: 71 NA which candidate(s), Democratic 73 Other candidate not listed above, Democratic 75 Democratic party OTHER: 05 Presidential candidate, independent 10 Independent or 3rd party Senate candidate *** 30 Independent or 3rd party House candidate *** 50 Independent or 3rd party Gubernatorial candidate *** 80 Other minor party or minor independent candidate-- any office level 85 3rd/other party 95 Other candidate(s) for state/local offices (office given but party NA), or non-party candidate 96 Other groups/individuals which are neither parties nor organized supporters of specific cands 97 Candidate name given but office and party NA 98 DK 99 NA +++ NAMES USED ONLY IN ERROR BY R *** TO BE USED ONLY WHEN CANDIDATE APPEARS ON CANDIDATE >> 1990 CENSUS DEFINITIONS THIS NOTE CONTAINS DEFINITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TERMS USED BY THE 1990 U.S. CENSUS OF POPULATION: Metropolitan Statistical Areas Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas Urbanized Areas Places Incorporated Places Unincorporated Places 1. "METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (MSA's):" The general concept of a metropolitan area is one of a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and social integration with that nucleus. In 1990 the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Census have used the term Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for what in 1980 was referred to as Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA). An attempt has been made by the study staff to be consistent in using the newer terms in the current documentation and definitions. The definitions of characteristics to be classified as a metropolitan area have remained fairly consistent--with only minor changes between 1980 and 1990. However, due to changes in population size and density, employment, commuting and other behavior which defines metropolitan areas, the specific geographical composition of any given metropolitan area has, of course, frequently changed. The specific MSA title may also have changed as to which cities are named and in what order. Each MSA has one or more central counties containing the area's main population concentration: an urganized area with at least 50,000 inhabitants. An MSA may also include outlying counties that have close economic and social relationships with the central counties. The outlying counties must have a specified level of commuting to the central counties and must also meet certain standards regarding metropolitan character, such as population density, urban population and population growth. In New England, MSA's are composed of cities and towns rather than whole counties. The population living in MSA's may also be referred to as the metropolitan population. The population is subdivided into "inside central city (or cities)" and "outside central city (or cities)." (The population living outside MSA's constitutes the non-metropolitan population.) Most MSA's have one to three CENTRAL CITIES that are named in the census title of the MSA. 2. "CONSOLIDATED METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (CMSA's):" In some parts of the country, metropolitan development has progressed to the point that adjoining MSA's are themselves socially and economically interrelated. These areas are designated consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSA's) by the Office of Management and Budget, and are defined using standards included as part of the new MSA standards described above. MSA's that are a part of a CMSA are referred to as primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSA's). Definitions of the six largest CMSA's: NEW YORK-NORTHERN NEW JERSEY-LONG ISLAND, NY-NJ-CT, CMSA Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA Bridgeport-Milford, CT PMSA Danbury, CT PMSA Jersey City, NJ PMSA Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ PMSA Monmouth-Ocean NJ PMSA Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA* New York, NY PMSA* Newark, NJ PMSA* Norwalk, CT PMSA Orange County, NY PMSA Stamford, CT PMSA LOS ANGELES-ANAHEIM-RIVERSIDE, CA, CMSA Anaheim-Santa Ana, CA PMSA* Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA* Oxnard-Ventura, CA PMSA Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA* CHICAGO-GARY-LAKE COUNTY (IL), IL-IN-WI CMSA Aurora-Elgin, IL PMSA* (Kane Co part only) Chicago, IL PMSA* Gary-Hammond, IN PMSA Joliet, IL PMSA* (Will Co part only) Kenosha, WI PMSA Lake County, IL PMSA* SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND-SAN JOSE, CA, CMSA Oakland, CA PMSA* San Francisco, CA PMSA* San Jose, CA PMSA Santa Cruz, CA PMSA Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA PMSA Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA PMSA PHILADELPHIA-WILMINGTON-TRENTON, PA-NJ-DE-MD, CMSA Philadelphia, PA-NJ, PMSA* Trenton, NJ PMSA Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ PMSA Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD PMSA DETROIT-ANN ARBOR, MI, CMSA Ann Arbor, MI PMSA Detroit, MI PMSA* * In the SRC 1980 National Sample (1992 NES sample). For the purpose of size and distance coding of suburbs and non-MSAs, the central cities of the six largest CMSAs are listed as: 1. New York City (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens), NY, Elizabeth, NJ and Newark, NJ 2. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Pasadena, Pomona, Burbank, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside, San Bernardino and Palm Springs, CA. 3. Chicago, Evanston and Chicago Heights, Aurora, Elgin, Joliet, Waukegan and North Chicago, IL 4. San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and Livermore, CA 5. Philadelphia and Norristown, PA and Camden, NJ 6. Detroit, Dearborn, Pontiac and Port Huron, MI Both the CMSA definitions and the central city designations above are from Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 1990, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC (Jun 1990) (PB90-214420) 3. "URBANIZED AREAS:" The major objective of the Census Bureau in delineating urbanized areas is to provide a better separation of urban and rural population in the vicinity of large cities. An urbanized area consists of a central city or cities, and surrounding closely settled territory ("urban fringe"). 4. "PLACES:" Two types of places are recognized in the census reports--incorporated places and unincorporated places, defined as follows: 5. "INCORPORATED PLACES:" These are political units incorporated as cities, borought, towns and villages with the following exceptions: (a) boroughs in Alaska; and (b) towns in New York, Wisconsin and the New England states. 6. "UNINCORPORATED PLACES:" The Census Bureau has delineated boundaries for closely settled population centers without corporate limits. Each place so delineated possesses a definite nucleus of residences and has its boundaries drawn to include, if feasible, all the surrounding closely settled area. These are called Census Designated Places (CDP's). >> 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE The full 3-digit 1980 Census Occupation Code was used to code the occupation of respondents. In order to minimize the amount of highly specific information released about respondents, the full occupation code has been recoded to a 71 category code, which is based on the occupation code sub-headings in the Census Code. Users who need access to the full 3-digit occupation code for their research purposes should contact NES project staff for details about how this could be arranged. In the code description that follows, the full 1980 Census Code is presented. At the beginning of each recoded section, the statement "(XXX) THROUGH (YYY) ARE RECODED TO (ZZ)" indicates the code values to which the specific occupations have been recoded. For example, purchasing managers (009), legislators (003), and funeral directors (018) have all been recoded to (01). Numbers in parentheses following the occupation categories are the U.S. Department of Commerce's 1980 Standard Occupational Classification code equivalents. The abbreviation "pt" means "part" and "N.E.C." means "not elsewhere classified". MANAGERIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SPECIALTY OCCUPATIONS Executive, Administrative, and Managerial (003) THROUGH (019) ARE RECODED TO: 01 003 LEGISLATORS (111) 004 CHIEF EXECUTIVES AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATORS, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (112) 005 ADMINISTRATORS AND OFFICIALS, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (1132-1139) 006 ADMINISTRATORS, PROTECTIVE SERVICES (1131) 007 FINANCIAL MANAGERS (122) 008 PERSONNEL AND LABOR RELATIONS MANAGERS (123) 009 PURCHASING MANAGERS (124) 013 MANAGERS, MARKETING, ADVERTISING, AND PUBLIC RELATIONS (125) 014 ADMINISTRATORS, EDUCATION AND RELATED FIELDS (128) 015 MANAGERS, MEDICINE AND HEALTH (131) 016 MANAGERS, PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE (1353) 017 POSTMASTERS AND MAIL SUPERINTENDENTS (1344) 018 FUNERAL DIRECTORS (PT 1359) 019 MANAGERS AND ADMINISTRATORS, N.E.C.(121, 126, 127, 132-139, EXCEPT 1344, 1353, PT 1359) ------------------------------------------------------------ Management-Related Occupations (023) THROUGH (037) ARE RECODED TO: 02 023 ACCOUNTANTS AND AUDITORS (1412) 024 UNDERWRITERS (1414) 025 OTHER FINANCIAL OFFICERS (1415, 1419) 026 MANAGEMENT ANALYSTS (142) 027 PERSONNEL, TRAINING, AND LABOR RELATIONS SPECIALISTS (143) 028 PURCHASING AGENTS AND BUYERS, FARM PRODUCTS (1443) 029 BUYERS, WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE, EXCEPT FARM PRODUCTS (1442) 033 PURCHASING AGENTS AND BUYERS, N.E.C. (1449) 034 BUSINESS AND PROMOTION AGENTS (145) 035 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTORS (1472) 036 INSPECTORS AND COMPLIANCE OFFICERS, EXC. CONSTRUCTION (1473) 037 MANAGEMENT RELATED OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. (149) ------------------------------------------------------------ Professional Specialty Occupations .................... - engineers, architects and surveyors - (043) THROUGH (063) ARE RECODED TO: 03 043 ARCHITECTS (161) ENGINEERS 044 AEROSPACE ENGINEERS (1622) 045 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS (1623) 046 MINING ENGINEERS (1624) 047 PETROLEUM ENGINEERS (1625) 048 CHEMICAL ENGINEERS (1626) 049 NUCLEAR ENGINEERS (1627) 053 CIVIL ENGINEERS (1628) 054 AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS (1632) 055 ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC ENGINEERS (1633, 1636) 056 INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERS (1634) 057 MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (1635) 058 MARINE ENGINEERS AND NAVAL ARCHITECTS (1637) 059 ENGINEERS, N.E.C. (1639) 063 SURVEYORS AND MAPPING SCIENTISTS (164) ------------------------------------------------------------ - mathematical and computer scientists - (064) THROUGH (068) ARE RECODED TO: 04 064 COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYSTS AND SCIENTISTS (171) 065 OPERATIONS AND SYSTEMS RESEARCHERS AND ANALYSTS (172) 066 ACTUARIES (1732) 067 STATISTICIANS (1733) 068 MATHEMATICAL SCIENTISTS, N.E.C. (1739) ------------------------------------------------------------ - natural scientists - (069) THROUGH (083) ARE RECODED TO: 05 069 PHYSICISTS AND ASTRONOMERS (1842, 1843) 073 CHEMISTS, EXCEPT BIOCHEMISTS (1845) 074 ATMOSPHERIC AND SPACE SCIENTISTS (1846) 075 GEOLOGISTS AND GEODESISTS (1847) 076 PHYSICAL SCIENTISTS, N.E.C. (1849) 077 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENTISTS (1853) 078 BIOLOGICAL AND LIFE SCIENTISTS (1854) 079 FORESTRY AND CONSERVATION SCIENTISTS (1852) 083 MEDICAL SCIENTISTS (1855) ------------------------------------------------------------ - health diagnosing occupations - (084) THROUGH (089) ARE RECODED TO: 06 084 PHYSICIANS (261) 085 DENTISTS (262) 086 VETERINARIANS (27) 087 OPTOMETRISTS (281) 088 PODIATRISTS (283) 089 HEALTH DIAGNOSING PRACTITIONERS, N.E.C. (289) ------------------------------------------------------------ - health assessment and treating occupations - (095) THROUGH (106) ARE RECODED TO: 07 095 REGISTERED NURSES (29) 096 PHARMACISTS (301) 097 DIETITIANS (302) THERAPISTS 098 INHALATION THERAPISTS (3031) 099 OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS (3032) 103 PHYSICAL THERAPISTS (3033) 104 SPEECH THERAPISTS (3034) 105 THERAPISTS, N.E.C. (3039) 106 PHYSICIANS' ASSISTANTS (304) ------------------------------------------------------------ - teachers, postsecondary - (113) THROUGH (154) ARE RECODED TO: 08 113 EARTH, ENVIRONMENTAL AND MARINE SCIENCE TEACHERS (2212) 114 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE TEACHERS (2213) 115 CHEMISTRY TEACHERS (2214) 116 PHYSICS TEACHERS (2215) 117 NATURAL SCIENCE TEACHERS, N.E.C. (2216) 118 PSYCHOLOGY TEACHERS (2217) 119 ECONOMICS TEACHERS (2218) 123 HISTORY TEACHERS (2222) 124 POLITICAL SCIENCE TEACHERS (2223) 125 SOCIOLOGY TEACHERS (2224) 126 SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHERS, N.E.C. (2225) 127 ENGINEERING TEACHERS (2226) 128 MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE TEACHERS (2227) 129 COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHERS (2228) 133 MEDICAL SCIENCE TEACHERS (2231) 134 HEALTH SPECIALTIES TEACHERS (2232) 135 BUSINESS, COMMERCE, AND MARKETING TEACHERS (2233) 136 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY TEACHERS (2234) 137 ART, DRAMA, AND MUSIC TEACHERS (2235) 138 PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHERS (2236) 139 EDUCATION TEACHERS (2237) 143 ENGLISH TEACHERS (2238) 144 FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHERS (2242) 145 LAW TEACHERS (2243) 146 SOCIAL WORK TEACHERS (2244) 147 THEOLOGY TEACHERS (2245) 148 TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL TEACHERS (2246) 149 HOME ECONOMICS TEACHERS (2247) 153 TEACHERS, POSTSECONDARY, N.E.C. (2249) 154 POSTSECONDARY TEACHERS, SUBJECT NOT SPECIFIED ------------------------------------------------------------ - teachers, except postsecondary - (155) THROUGH (165) ARE RECODED TO: 09 155 TEACHERS, PREKINDERGARTEN AND KINDERGARTEN (231) 156 TEACHERS, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (232) 157 TEACHERS, SECONDARY SCHOOL (233) 158 TEACHERS, SPECIAL EDUCATION (235) 159 TEACHERS, N.E.C. (236,239) 163 COUNSELORS, EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL (24) LIBRARIANS, ARCHIVISTS, AND CURATORS 164 LIBRARIANS (251) 165 ARCHIVISTS AND CURATORS (252) ------------------------------------------------------------ - social scientist and urban planners - (166) THROUGH (173) ARE RECODED TO: 10 166 ECONOMISTS (1912) 167 PSYCHOLOGISTS (1915) 168 SOCIOLOGISTS (1916) 169 SOCIAL SCIENTISTS, N.E.C. (1913, 1914, 1919) 173 URBAN PLANNERS (192) ------------------------------------------------------------ - social, recreation, and religious workers - (173) THROUGH (177) ARE RECODED TO: 11 174 SOCIAL WORKERS (2032) 175 RECREATION WORKERS (2033) 176 CLERGY (2042) 177 RELIGIOUS WORKERS, N.E.C. (2049) ------------------------------------------------------------ - lawyers and judges - (178) THROUGH (179) ARE RECODED TO: 12 178 LAWYERS (211) 179 JUDGES (212) ------------------------------------------------------------ - writers, artists, entertainers, and athletes - (183) THROUGH (199) ARE RECODED TO: 13 183 AUTHORS (321) 184 TECHNICAL WRITERS (398) 185 DESIGNERS (322) 186 MUSICIANS AND COMPOSERS (323) 187 ACTORS AND DIRECTORS (324) 188 PAINTERS, SCULPTORS, CRAFT-ARTISTS, AND ARTIST PRINTMAKERS (325) 189 PHOTOGRAPHERS (326) 193 DANCERS (327) 194 ARTISTS, PERFORMERS, AND RELATED WORKERS, N.E.C. (328, 329) 195 EDITORS AND REPORTERS (331) 197 PUBLIC RELATIONS SPECIALISTS (332) 198 ANNOUNCERS (333) 199 ATHLETES (34) ------------------------------------------------------------ TECHNICIANS AND RELATED SUPPORT OCCUPATIONS Health Technologists and Technicians (203) THROUGH (208) ARE RECODED TO: 14 203 CLINICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGISTS AND TECHNICIANS (362) 204 DENTAL HYGIENISTS (363) 205 HEALTH RECORD TECHNOLOGISTS AND TECHNICIANS (364) 206 RADIOLOGIC TECHNICIANS (365) 207 LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSES (366) 208 HEALTH TECHNOLOGISTS AND TECHNICIANS, N.E.C. (369) ------------------------------------------------------------ Technologists and Technicians, except Health .................... - engineering and related technologists and technicians - (213) THROUGH (218) ARE RECODED TO: 15 213 ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC TECHNICIANS (3711) 214 INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS (3712) 215 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS (3713) 216 ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS, N.E.C. (3719) 217 DRAFTING OCCUPATIONS (372) 218 SURVEYING AND MAPPING TECHNICIANS (373) ------------------------------------------------------------ - science technicians - (223) THROUGH (225) ARE RECODED TO: 16 223 BIOLOGICAL TECHNICIANS (382) 224 CHEMICAL TECHNICIANS (3831) 225 SCIENCE TECHNICIANS, N.E.C. (3832, 3833, 384, 389) ------------------------------------------------------------ - technicians, except health, engineering, and science - (226) THROUGH (235) ARE RECODED TO: 17 226 AIRPLANE PILOTS AND NAVIGATORS (825) 227 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS (392) 228 BROADCAST EQUIPMENT OPERATORS (393) 229 COMPUTER PROGRAMMERS (3971, 3972) 233 TOOL PROGRAMMERS, NUMERICAL CONTROL (3974) 234 LEGAL ASSISTANTS (396) 235 TECHNICIANS, N.E.C. (399) ------------------------------------------------------------ SALES OCCUPATIONS Supervisors and Proprietors (243) IS RECODED TO: 18 243 SUPERVISORS AND PROPRIETORS, SALES OCCUPATIONS (40) Sales Representatives, Finance and Business Services (253) THROUGH (257) ARE RECODED TO: 18 253 INSURANCE SALES OCCUPATIONS (4122) 254 REAL ESTATE SALES OCCUPATIONS (4123) 255 SECURITIES AND FINANCIAL SERVICES SALES OCCUPATIONS (4124) 256 ADVERTISING AND RELATED SALES OCCUPATIONS (4153) 257 SALES OCCUPATIONS, OTHER BUSINESS SERVICES (4152) ------------------------------------------------------------ Sales Representatives, Commoddities except Retail (258) THROUGH (259) ARE RECODED TO: 19 258 SALES ENGINEERS (421) 259 SALES REPRESENTATIVES, MINING, MANUFACTURING, AND WHOLESALE (423, 424) ------------------------------------------------------------ Sales Workers, Retail and Personal Services (263) THROUGH (278) ARE RECODED TO: 20 263 SALES WORKERS, MOTOR VEHICLES AND BOATS (4342, 4344) 264 SALES WORKERS, APPAREL (4346) 265 SALES WORKERS, SHOES (4351) 266 SALES WORKERS, FURNITURE AND HOME FURNISHINGS (4348) 267 SALES WORKERS; RADIO, TELEVISION, HI-FI, AND APPLIANCES (4343, 4352) 268 SALES WORKERS, HARDWARE AND BUILDING SUPPLIES (4353) 269 SALES WORKERS, PARTS (4367) 274 SALES WORKERS, OTHER COMMODITIES (4345, 4347, 4354, 4356, 4359, 4362, 4369) 275 SALES COUNTER CLERKS (4363) 276 CASHIERS (4364) 277 STREET AND DOOR-TO-DOOR SALES WORKERS (4366) 278 NEWS VENDORS (4365) ------------------------------------------------------------ Sales Related Occupations (283) THROUGH (285) ARE RECODED TO: 21 283 DEMONSTRATORS, PROMOTERS AND MODELS, SALES (445) 284 AUCTIONEERS(447) 285 SALES SUPPORT OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. (444, 446, 449) ------------------------------------------------------------ ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT, (incl. Clerical supervisors) Clerical Supervisors (303) THROUGH (307) ARE RECODED TO: 22 303 SUPERVISORS, GENERAL OFFICE (4511, 4513-4519, 4529) 304 SUPERVISORS, COMPUTER EQUIPMENT OPERATORS (4512) 305 SUPERVISORS, FINANCIAL RECORDS PROCESSING (4521) 306 CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS OPERATORS (4523) 307 SUPERVISORS; DISTRIBUTION, SCHEDULING, AND ADJUSTING CLERKS (4522, 4524-4528) ------------------------------------------------------------ Computer Equipment Operators (308) THROUGH (309) ARE RECODED TO: 23 308 COMPUTER OPERATORS (4612) 309 PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATORS (4613) ------------------------------------------------------------ Secretaries, Stenographers, and Typists (313) THROUGH (315) ARE RECODED TO: 24 313 SECRETARIES (4622) 314 STENOGRAPHERS (4623) 315 TYPISTS (4624) ------------------------------------------------------------ Information Clerks (316) THROUGH (323) ARE RECODED TO: 25 316 INTERVIEWERS (4642) 317 HOTEL CLERKS (4643) 318 TRANSPORTATION TICKET AND RESERVATION AGENTS (4644) 319 RECEPTIONISTS (4645) 323 INFORMATION CLERKS, N.E.C. (4649) ------------------------------------------------------------ Records Processing Occupations, except Financial (325) THROUGH (336) ARE RECODED TO: 26 325 CLASSIFIED-AD CLERKS (4662) 326 CORRESPONDENCE CLERKS (4663) 327 ORDER CLERKS (4664) 328 PERSONNEL CLERKS, EXCEPT PAYROLL AND TIMEKEEPING (4692) 329 LIBRARY CLERKS (4694) 335 FILE CLERKS (4696) 336 RECORDS CLERKS (4699) ------------------------------------------------------------ Financial Records Processing Occupations (337) THROUGH (344) ARE RECODED TO: 27 337 BOOKKEEPERS, ACCOUNTING, AND AUDITING CLERKS (4712) 338 PAYROLL AND TIMEKEEPING CLERKS (4713) 339 BILLING CLERKS (4715) 343 COST AND RATE CLERKS (4716) 344 BILLING, POSTING, AND CALCULATING MACHINE OPERATORS (4718) ------------------------------------------------------------ Duplicating, Mail and Other Office Machine Operators (345) THROUGH (347) ARE RECODED TO: 28 345 DUPLICATING MACHINE OPERATORS (4722) 346 MAIL PREPARING AND PAPER HANDLING MACHINE OPERATORS (4739) 347 OFFICE MACHINE OPERATORS, N.E.C. (4729) ------------------------------------------------------------ Communications Equipment Operators (348) THROUGH (353) ARE RECODED TO: 29 348 TELEPHONE OPERATORS (4732) 349 TELEGRAPHERS (4733) 353 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT OPERATORS, N.E.C. (4739) ------------------------------------------------------------ Mail and Message Distributing Occupations (354) THROUGH (357) ARE RECODED TO: 30 354 POSTAL CLERKS, EXC. MAIL CARRIERS (4742) 355 MAIL CARRIERS, POSTAL SERVICE (4743) 356 MAIL CLERKS, EXC. POSTAL SERVICE (4744) 357 MESSENGERS (4745) ------------------------------------------------------------ Material Recording, Scheduling, and Distribuing Clerks, N.E.C. (359) THROUGH (374) ARE RECODED TO: 31 359 DISPATCHERS (4751) 363 PRODUCTION COORDINATORS (4752) 364 TRAFFIC, SHIPPING, AND RECEIVING CLERKS (4753) 365 STOCK AND INVENTORY CLERKS (4754) 366 METER READERS (4755) 368 WEIGHERS, MEASURERS, AND CHECKERS (4756) 369 SAMPLERS (4757) 373 EXPEDITERS (4758) 374 MATERIAL RECORDING, SCHEDULING, AND DISTRIBUTING CLERKS, N.E.C. (4759) ------------------------------------------------------------ Adjusters and Investigators (375) THROUGH (378) ARE RECODED TO: 32 375 INSURANCE ADJUSTERS, EXAMINERS, AND INVESTIGATORS (4782) 376 INVESTIGATORS AND ADJUSTERS, EXCEPT INSURANCE (4783) 377 ELIGIBILITY CLERKS, SOCIAL WELFARE (4784) 378 BILL AND ACCOUNT COLLECTORS (4786) ------------------------------------------------------------ Miscellaneous Administrative Support Occupations (379) THROUGH (389) ARE RECODED TO: 33 379 GENERAL OFFICE CLERKS (463) 383 BANK TELLERS (4791) 384 PROOFREADERS (4792) 385 DATA-ENTRY KEYERS (4793) 386 STATISTICAL CLERKS (4794) 387 TEACHERS' AIDES (4795) 389 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. (4787, 4799) ------------------------------------------------------------ SERVICE OCCUPATIONS Private Household Occupations (403) THROUGH (407) ARE RECODED TO: 34 403 LAUNDERERS AND IRONERS (503) 404 COOKS, PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD (504) 405 HOUSEKEEPERS AND BUTLERS (505) 406 CHILD CARE WORKERS, PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD (506) 407 PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD CLEANERS AND SERVANTS (502, 507, 509) ------------------------------------------------------------ Protective Service Occupations .................... -supervisors, protective service occupations- (413) THROUGH (415) ARE RECODED TO: 35 413 SUPERVISORS, FIREFIGHTING AND FIRE PREVENTION OCCUPATIONS (5111) 414 SUPERVISORS, POLICE AND DETECTIVES (5112) 415 SUPERVISORS, GUARDS (5113) ------------------------------------------------------------ -firefighting and fire prevention occupations- (416) THROUGH (417) ARE RECODED TO: 35 416 FIRE INSPECTION AND FIRE PREVENTION OCCUPATIONS (5122) 417 FIREFIGHTING OCCUPATIONS (5123) ------------------------------------------------------------ -police and detectives- (418) THROUGH (424) ARE RECODED TO: 35 418 POLICE AND DETECTIVES, PUBLIC SERVICE (5132) 423 SHERIFFS, BAILIFFS, AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS (5134) 424 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION OFFICERS (5133) ------------------------------------------------------------ -guards- (425) THROUGH (427) ARE RECODED TO: 35 425 CROSSING GUARDS (5142) 426 GUARDS AND POLICE, EXCEPT PUBLIC SERVICE (5144) 427 PROTECTIVE SERVICE OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. (5149) ------------------------------------------------------------ Service Occupations, except Protective and Household .................... -food preparation and service occupations- (433) THROUGH (444) ARE RECODED TO: 36 433 SUPERVISORS, FOOD PREPARATION AND SERVICE OCCUPATIONS (5211) 434 BARTENDERS (5212) 435 WAITERS AND WAITRESSES (5213) 436 COOKS, EXCEPT SHORT ORDER (5214) 437 SHORT-ORDER COOKS (5215) 438 FOOD COUNTER, FOUNTAIN AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS (5216) 439 KITCHEN WORKERS, FOOD PREPARATION (5217) 443 WAITERS'/WAITRESSES' ASSISTANTS (5218) 444 MISCELLANEOUS FOOD PREPARATION OCCUPATIONS (5219) ------------------------------------------------------------ -health service occupations- (435) THROUGH (447) ARE RECODED TO: 37 445 DENTAL ASSISTANTS (5232) 446 HEALTH AIDES, EXCEPT NURSING (5233) 447 NURSING AIDES, ORDERLIES, AND ATTENDANTS (5236) ------------------------------------------------------------ -cleaning and building service occupations, exc. household- (448) THROUGH (455) ARE RECODED TO: 38 448 SUPERVISORS, CLEANING AND BUILDING SERVICE WORKKERS (5241) 449 MAIDS AND HOUSEMEN (5242, 5249) 453 JANITORS AND CLEANERS (5244) 454 ELEVATOR OPERATORS (5245) 455 PEST CONTROL OCCUPATIONS (5246) ------------------------------------------------------------ -personal service occupations- (456) THROUGH (469) ARE RECODED TO: 39 456 SUPERVISORS, PERSONAL SERVICE OCCUPATIONS (5251) 457 BARBERS (5252) 458 HAIRDRESSERS AND COSMETOLOGISTS (5253) 459 ATTENDANTS, AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION FACILITIES (5254) 463 GUIDES (5255) 464 USHERS (5256) 465 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ATTENDANTS (5257) 466 BAGGAGE PORTERS AND BELLHOPS (5262) 467 WELFARE SERVICE AIDES (5263) 468 CHILD CARE WORKERS, EXCEPT PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD (5264) 469 PERSONAL SERVICE OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. (5258, 5269) ------------------------------------------------------------ FARMING, FORESTRY, AND FISHING OCCUPATIONS Farm Operators and Managers (473) THROUGH (476) ARE RECODED TO: 40 473 FARMERS, EXCEPT HORTICULTURAL (5512-5514) 474 HORTICULTURAL SPECIALTY FARMERS (5515) 475 MANAGERS, FARMS, EXCEPT HORTICULTURAL (5522-5524) 476 MANAGERS, HORTICULTURAL SPECIALTY FARMS (5525) ------------------------------------------------------------ Other Agriculatural and Related Occupations .................... -farm occupations, except managerial- (477) THROUGH (484) ARE RECODED TO: 41 477 SUPERVISORS, FARM WORKERS (5611) 479 FARM WORKERS (5612-5617) 483 MARINE LIFE CULTIVATION WORKERS (5618) 484 NURSERY WORKERS (5619) ------------------------------------------------------------ -related agriculatural occupations- (485) THROUGH (489) ARE RECODED TO: 42 485 SUPERVISORS, RELATED AGRICULTURAL OCCUPATIONS (5621) 486 GROUNDSKEEPERS AND GARDENERS, EXCEPT FARM (5622) 487 ANIMAL CARETAKERS, EXCEPT FARM (5624) 488 GRADERS AND SORTERS, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (5625) 489 INSPECTORS, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (5627) ------------------------------------------------------------ -forestry and logging occupations- (494) THROUGH (496) ARE RECODED TO: 43 494 SUPERVISORS, FORESTRY AND LOGGING WORKERS (571) 495 FORESTRY WORKERS, EXCEPT LOGGING (572) 496 TIMBER CUTTING AND LOGGING OCCUPATIONS (573, 579) ------------------------------------------------------------ -fishers, hunters, and trappers- (497) THROUGH (499) ARE RECODED TO: 43 497 CAPTAINS AND OTHER OFFICERS, FISHING VESSELS (PT 8241) 498 FISHERS (583) 499 HUNTERS AND TRAPPERS (584) ------------------------------------------------------------ PRECISION PRODUCTION, CRAFT, AND REPAIR OCCUPATIONS Mechanics and Repairers .................... -mechanics and repairers supervisors- (503) IS RECODED TO: 44 503 SUPERVISORS, MECHANICS AND REPAIRERS (60) ------------------------------------------------------------ -mechanics and repairers, vehicle and mobile equipment- (505) THROUGH (517) ARE RECODED TO: 44 505 AUTOMOBILE MECHANICS (PT 6111) 506 AUTOMOBILE MECHANIC APPRENTICES (PT 6111) 507 BUS, TRUCK, AND STATIONARY ENGINE MECHANICS (6112) 508 AIRCRAFT ENGINE MECHANICS (6113) 509 SMALL ENGINE REPAIRERS (6114) 514 AUTOMOBILE BODY AND RELATED REPAIRERS (6115) 515 AIRCRAFT MECHANICS, EXCEPT ENGINE (6116) 516 HEAVY EQUIPMENT MECHANICS (6117) 517 FARM EQUIPMENT MECHANICS (6118) ------------------------------------------------------------ -mechanics and repairers, except vehicle and mobile equipment- (518) THROUGH (534) ARE RECODED TO: 45 518 INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY REPAIRERS (613) 519 MACHINERY MAINTENANCE OCCUPATIONS (614) ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT REPAIRERS 523 ELECTRONIC REPAIRERS, COMMUNICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT (6151, 6153, 6155) 525 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT REPAIRERS (6154) 526 HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE AND POWER TOOL REPAIRERS (6156) 527 TELEPHONE LINE INSTALLERS AND REPAIRERS (6157) 529 TELEPHONE INSTALLERS AND REPAIRERS (6158) 533 MISCELLANEOUS ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT REPAIRERS (6152, 6159) 534 HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING, AND REFRIGERATION MECHANICS (616) ------------------------------------------------------------ -miscellaneous mechanics and repairers (535) THROUGH (549) ARE RECODED TO: 46 535 CAMERA, WATCH, AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENT REPAIRERS (6171, 6172) 536 LOCKSMITHS AND SAFE REPAIRERS (6173) 538 OFFICE MACHINE REPAIRERS (6174) 539 MECHANICAL CONTROLS AND VALVE REPAIRERS (6175) 543 ELEVATOR INSTALLERS AND REPAIRERS (6176) 544 MILLWRIGHTS (6178) 547 SPECIFIED MECHANICS AND REPAIRERS, N.E.C. (6177, 6179) 549 NOT SPECIFIED MECHANICS AND REPAIRERS ------------------------------------------------------------ Construction Trades .................... -supervisors, construction occupations- (553) THROUGH (558) ARE RECODED TO: 47 553 SUPERVISORS; BRICKMASONS, STONEMASONS, AND TILE SETTERS (6312) 554 SUPERVISORS, CARPENTERS AND RELATED WORKERS (6313) 555 SUPERVISORS, ELECTRICIANS AND POWER TRANSMISSION INSTALLERS (6314) 556 SUPERVISORS; PAINTERS, PAPERHANGERS, AND PLASTERERS (6315) 557 SUPERVISORS; PLUMBERS, PIPEFITTERS, AND STEAMFITTERS (6316) 558 SUPERVISORS, N.E.C. (6311, 6318) ------------------------------------------------------------ -construction trades, except supervisors- (563) THROUGH (599) ARE RECODED TO: 48 563 BRICKMASONS AND STONEMASONS, (PT 6412, PT 6413) 564 BRICKMASON AND STONEMASON APPRENTICES (PT 6412, PT 6413) 565 TILE SETTERS, HARD AND SOFT (6414, PT 6462) 566 CARPET INSTALLERS (PT 6462) 567 CARPENTERS (PT 6422) 569 CARPENTER APPRENTICES (PT 6422) 573 DRYWALL INSTALLERS (6424) 575 ELECTRICIANS (PT 6432) 576 ELECTRICIAN APPRENTICES (PT 6432) 577 ELECTRICAL POWER INSTALLERS AND REPAIRERS (6433) 579 PAINTERS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE (6442) 583 PAPERHANGERS (6443) 584 PLASTERERS (6444) 585 PLUMBERS, PIPEFITTERS, AND STEAMFITTERS (PT 645) 587 PLUMBER, PIPEFITTER, AND STEAMFITTER APPRENTICES (PT 645) 588 CONCRETE AND TERRAZZO FINISHERS (6463) 589 GLAZIERS (6464) 593 INSULATION WORKERS (6465) 594 PAVING, SURFACING, AND TAMPING EQUIPMENT OPERATORS (6466) 595 ROOFERS (6468) 596 SHEETMETAL DUCT INSTALLERS (6472) 597 STRUCTURAL METAL WORKERS (6473) 598 DRILLERS, EARTH (6474) 599 CONSTRUCTION TRADES, N.E.C. (6467, 6475, 6476, 6479) ------------------------------------------------------------ Extractive Occupations (613) THROUGH (617) ARE RECODED TO: 49 613 SUPERVISORS, EXTRACTIVE OCCUPATIONS (632) 614 DRILLERS, OIL WELL (652) 615 EXPLOSIVES WORKERS (653) 616 MINING MACHINE OPERATORS (654) 617 MINING OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. (656) ------------------------------------------------------------ Precision Production Occupations .................... -production occupation supervisors- (633) IS RECODED TO: 50 633 SUPERVISORS, PRODUCTION OCCUPATIONS (67, 71) ------------------------------------------------------------ -precision metalworking occupations- (634) THROUGH (655) ARE RECODED TO: 50 634 TOOL AND DIE MAKERS (PT 6811) 635 TOOL AND DIE MAKER APPRENTICES (PT 6811) 636 PRECISION ASSEMBLERS, METAL (6812) 637 MACHINISTS (PT 6813) 639 MACHINIST APPRENTICES (PT 6813) 643 BOILERMAKERS (6814) 644 PRECISION GRINDERS, FITTERS, AND TOOL SHARPENERS (6816) 645 PATTERNMAKERS AND MODEL MAKERS, METAL (6817) 646 LAY-OUT WORKERS (6821) 647 PRECIOUS STONES AND METALS WORKERS (JEWELERS) (6822, 6866) 649 ENGRAVERS, METAL (6823) 653 SHEET METAL WORKERS (PT 6824) 654 SHEET METAL WORKER APPRENTICES (PT 6824) 655 MISCELLANEOUS PRECISION METAL WORKERS (6829) ------------------------------------------------------------ -precision woodworking occupations- (656) THROUGH (659) ARE RECODED TO: 51 656 PATTERNMAKERS AND MODEL MAKERS, WOOD (6831) 657 CABINET MAKERS AND BENCH CARPENTERS (6832) 658 FURNITURE AND WOOD FINISHERS (6835) 659 MISCELLANEOUS PRECISION WOODWORKERS (6839) ------------------------------------------------------------ -precision textile, apparel, and furnishings machine workers- (666) THROUGH (674) ARE RECODED TO: 52 666 DRESSMAKERS (PT 6852, PT 7752) 667 AILORS (PT 6852) 668 UPHOLSTERERS (6853) 669 SHOE REPAIRERS (6854) 673 APPAREL AND FABRIC PATTERNMAKERS (6856) 674 MISCELLANEOUS PRECISION APPAREL AND FABRIC WORKERS (6859, PT 7752) ------------------------------------------------------------ -precision workers, assorted materials- (675) THROUGH (684) ARE RECODED TO: 53 675 AND MOLDERS AND SHAPERS, EXCEPT JEWELERS (6861) 676 PATTERNMAKERS, LAY-OUT WORKERS, AND CUTTERS (6862) 677 OPTICAL GOODS WORKERS (6864, PT 7477, PT 7677) 678 DENTAL LABORATORY AND MEDICAL APPLIANCE TECHNICIANS (6865) 679 BOOKBINDERS (6844) 683 ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT ASSEMBLERS (6867) 684 MISCELLANEOUS PRECISION WORKERS, N.E.C. (6869) ------------------------------------------------------------ -precision food production occupations- (686) THROUGH (688) ARE RECODED TO: 54 686 BUTCHERS AND MEAT CUTTERS (6871) 687 BAKERS (6872) 688 FOOD BATCHMAKERS (6873, 6879) ------------------------------------------------------------ -precision inspectors, testers and related workers- (689) THROUGH (693) ARE RECODED TO: 55 689 INSPECTORS, TESTERS, AND GRADERS (6881, 828) 693 ADJUSTERS AND CALIBRATORS (6882) ------------------------------------------------------------ Plant and System Operators (694) THROUGH (699) ARE RECODED TO: 56 694 WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT OPERATORS (691) 695 POWER PLANT OPERATORS (PT 693) 696 STATIONARY ENGINEERS (PT 693, 7668) 699 MISCELLANEOUS PLANT AND SYSTEM OPERATORS (692, 694, 695, 696) ------------------------------------------------------------ OPERATORS, FABRICATORS, AND LABORERS Machine Operators, Assemblers, and Inspectors .................... -machine operators and tenders, except precision: metalworking and plastic working machine operators- (703) THROUGH (717) ARE RECODED TO: 57 703 LATHE AND TURNING MACHINE SET-UP OPERATORS (7312) 704 LATHE AND TURNING MACHINE OPERATORS (7512) 705 MILLING AND PLANING MACHINE OPERATORS (7313, 7513) 706 PUNCHING AND STAMPING PRESS MACHINE OPERATORS (7314, 7317, 7514, 7517) 707 ROLLING MACHINE OPERATORS (7316, 7516) 708 DRILLING AND BORING MACHINE OPERATORS (7318, 7518) 709 GRINDING, ABRADING, BUFFING, AND POLISHING MACHINE OPERATORS (7322, 7324, 7522) 713 FORGING MACHINE OPERATORS (7319, 7519) 714 NUMERICAL CONTROL MACHINE OPERATORS (7326) 715 MISCELLANEOUS METAL, PLASTIC, STONE, AND GLASS WORKING MACHINE OPERATORS (7329, 7529) 717 FABRICATING MACHINE OPERATORS, N.E.C. (7339, 7539) ------------------------------------------------------------ -machine operators and tenders, except precision: metal and plastic processing machine operators- (719) THROUGH (725) ARE RECODED TO: 58 719 MOLDING AND CASTING MACHINE OPERATORS (7315, 7342, 7515, 7542) 723 METAL PLATING MACHINE OPERATORS (7343, 7543) 724 HEAT TREATING EQUIPMENT OPERATORS (7344, 7544) 725 MISCELLANEOUS METAL AND PLASTIC PROCESSING MACHINE OPERATORS (7349, 7549) ------------------------------------------------------------ -machine operators and tenders, except precision: woodworking machine operators- (726) THROUGH (733) ARE RECODED TO: 59 726 WOOD LATHE, ROUTING AND PLANING MACHINE OPERATORS (7431, 7432, 7631, 7632) 727 SAWING MACHINE OPERATORS (7433, 7633) 728 SHAPING AND JOINING MACHINE OPERATORS (7435, 7635) 729 NAILING AND TACKING MACHINE OPERATORS (7636) 733 MISCELLANEOUS WOODWORKING MACHINE OPERATORS (7434, 7439, 7634, 7639) ------------------------------------------------------------ -machine operators and tenders, except precision: printing machine operators- (734) THROUGH (737) ARE RECODED TO: 60 734 PRINTING MACHINE OPERATORS (7443, 7643) 735 PHOTOENGRAVERS AND LITHOGRAPHERS (6842, 7444, 7644) 736 TYPESETTERS AND COMPOSITORS (6841, 7642) 737 MISCELLANEOUS PRINTING MACHINE OPERATORS (6849, 7449, 7649) ------------------------------------------------------------ -machine operators and tenders, except precision: textile, apparel, and furnishings machine operators- (738) THROUGH (749) ARE RECODED TO: 61 738 WINDING AND TWISTING MACHINE OPERATORS (7451, 7651) 739 KNITTING, LOOPING, TAPING, AND WEAVING MACHINE OPERATORS (7452, 7652) 743 TEXTILE CUTTING MACHINE OPERATORS (7654) 744 TEXTILE SEWING MACHINE OPERATORS (7655) 745 SHOE MACHINE OPERATORS (7656) 747 PRESSING MACHINE OPERATORS (7657) 748 LAUNDERING AND DRY CLEANING MACHINE OPERATORS (6855, 7658) 749 MISCELLANEOUS TEXTILE MACHINE OPERATORS (7459, 7659) ------------------------------------------------------------ -machine operators and tenders, except precision: machine operators, assorted materials- (753) THROUGH (779) ARE RECODED TO: 62 753 CEMENTING AND GLUING MACHINE OPERATORS (7661) 754 PACKAGING AND FILLING MACHINE OPERATORS (7462, 7662) 755 EXTRUDING AND FORMING MACHINE OPERATORS (7463, 7663) 756 MIXING AND BLENDING MACHINE OPERATORS (7664) 757 SEPARATING, FILTERING, AND CLARIFYING MACHINE OPERATORS (7476, 7666, 7676)) 758 COMPRESSING AND COMPACTING MACHINE OPERATORS (7467, 7667) 759 PAINTING AND PAINT SPRAYING MACHINE OPERATORS (7669) 763 ROASTING AND BAKING MACHINE OPERATORS, FOOD (7472, 7672) 764 WASHING, CLEANING, AND PICKLING MACHINE OPERATORS (7673) 765 FOLDING MACHINE OPERATORS (7474, 7674) 766 FURNACE, KILN, AND OVEN OPERATORS, EXC. FOOD (7675) 768 CRUSHING AND GRINDING MACHINE OPERATORS (PT 7477, PT 7677) 769 SLICING AND CUTTING MACHINE OPERATORS (7478, 7678) 773 MOTION PICTURE PROJECTIONISTS (PT 7479) 774 PHOTOGRAPHIC PROCESS MACHINE OPERATORS (6863, 6868, 7671) 777 MISCELLANEOUS MACHINE OPERATORS, N.E.C. (PT 7479,7665, 7679) 779 MACHINE OPERATORS, NOT SPECIFIED ------------------------------------------------------------ -fabricators, assemblers, and hand working occupations- (783) THROUGH (795) ARE RECODED TO: 63 783 WELDERS AND CUTTERS (7332, 7532, 7714) 784 SOLDERERS AND BRAZERS (7333, 7533, 7717) 785 ASSEMBLERS (772,774) 786 HAND CUTTING AND TRIMMING OCCUPATIONS (7753) 787 HAND MOLDING, CASTING, AND FORMING OCCUPATIONS (7754, 7755) 789 HAND PAINTING, COATING, AND DECORATING OCCUPATIONS (7756) 793 HAND ENGRAVING AND PRINTING OCCUPATIONS (7757) 794 HAND GRINDING AND POLISHING OCCUPATIONS (7758) 795 MISCELLANEOUS HAND WORKING OCCUPATIONS (7759) ------------------------------------------------------------ -production inspectors, testors, samplers, and weighers- (796) THROUGH (799) ARE RECODED TO: 64 796 PRODUCTION INSPECTORS, CHECKERS, AND EXAMINERS (782, 787) 797 PRODUCTION TESTERS (783) 798 PRODUCTION SAMPLERS AND WEIGHERS (784) 799 GRADERS AND SORTERS, EXCEPT AGRICULTURAL (785) ------------------------------------------------------------ Transportation and Material Moving Occupations .................... -motor vehicle operators- (803) THROUGH (814) ARE RECODED TO: 65 803 SUPERVISORS, MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS (8111) 804 TRUCK DRIVERS, HEAVY (8212, 8213) 805 TRUCK DRIVERS, LIGHT (8214) 806 DRIVER-SALES WORKERS (8218) 808 BUS DRIVERS (8215) 809 TAXICAB DRIVERS AND CHAUFFEURS (8216) 813 PARKING LOT ATTENDANTS (874) 814 MOTOR TRANSPORTATION OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C. (8219) ------------------------------------------------------------ Transportation Occupations, except Motor Vehicles .................... -rail transportation occupations- (823) THROUGH (826) ARE RECODED TO: 66 823 RAILROAD CONDUCTORS AND YARDMASTERS (8113) 824 LOCOMOTIVE OPERATING OCCUPATIONS (8232) 825 RAILROAD BRAKE, SIGNAL, AND SWITCH OPERATORS (8233) 826 RAIL VEHICLE OPERATORS, N.E.C. (8239) ------------------------------------------------------------ -water transportation occupations- (828) THROUGH (834) ARE RECODED TO: 66 828 SHIP CAPTAINS AND MATES, EXCEPT FISHING BOATS (PT 8241, 8242) 829 SAILORS AND DECKHANDS (8243) 833 MARINE ENGINEERS (8244) 834 BRIDGE, LOCK, AND LIGHTHOUSE TENDERS (8245) ------------------------------------------------------------ Material Moving Equipment Operators (843) THROUGH (859) ARE RECODED TO: 67 843 SUPERVISORS, MATERIAL MOVING EQUIPMENT OPERATORS (812) 844 OPERATING ENGINEERS (8312) 845 LONGSHORE EQUIPMENT OPERATORS (8313) 848 HOIST AND WINCH OPERATORS (8314) 849 CRANE AND TOWER OPERATORS (8315) 853 EXCAVATING AND LOADING MACHINE OPERATORS (8316) 855 GRADER, DOZER, AND SCRAPER OPERATORS (8317) 856 INDUSTRIAL TRUCK AND TRACTOR EQUIPMENT OPERATORS (8318) 859 MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL MOVING EQUIPMENT OPERATORS (8319) ------------------------------------------------------------ Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, Helpers, and Laborers (863) THROUGH (873) ARE RECODED TO: 68 863 SUPERVISORS; HANDLERS, EQUIPMENT CLEANERS, AND LABORERS, N.E.C. (85) 864 HELPERS, MECHANICS AND REPAIRERS (863) HELPERS, CONSTRUCTION AND EXTRACTIVE OCCUPATIONS 865 HELPERS, CONSTRUCTION TRADES (8641-8645, 8648) 866 HELPERS, SURVEYOR (8646) 867 HELPERS, EXTRACTIVE OCCUPATIONS (865) 869 CONSTRUCTION LABORERS (871) 873 PRODUCTION HELPERS (861, 862) ------------------------------------------------------------ Freight, Stock, and Material Handlers (875) THROUGH (883) ARE RECODED TO: 69 875 GARBAGE COLLECTORS (8722) 876 STEVEDORES (8723) 877 STOCK HANDLERS AND BAGGERS (8724) 878 MACHINE FEEDERS AND OFFBEARERS (8725) 883 FREIGHT, STOCK, AND MATERIAL HANDLERS, N.E.C. (8726) ------------------------------------------------------------ (885) THROUGH (889) ARE RECODED TO: 70 885 GARAGE AND SERVICE STATION RELATED OCCUPATIONS (873) 887 VEHICLE WASHERS AND EQUIPMENT CLEANERS (875) 888 HAND PACKERS AND PACKAGERS (8761) 889 LABORERS, EXCEPT CONSTRUCTION (8769) ------------------------------------------------------------ (900) IS RECODED TO: 71 900 CURRENT MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES (NOT A CENSUS CODE) ------------------------------------------------------------ (999) IS RECODED TO: 90 999 OCCUPATION NOT REPORTED (CODE USED WHEN NOT-REPORTED CASES ARE NOT ALLOCATED) >> 1980 CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES FOLLOWING INDUSTRY CATEGORIES ARE THE U.S DEPT. OF COMMERCE 1972 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC) DEFINITIONS. THE ABBREVIATION "PT" MEANS "PART" AND "N.E.C." MEANS "NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED." AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHERIES 010 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, CROPS (01) 011 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, LIVESTOCK (02) 020 AGRICULTURAL SERVICES, EXCEPT HORTICULTURAL (07, EXCEPT 078) 021 HORTICULTURAL SERVICES (078) 030 FORESTRY (08) 031 FISHING, HUNTING, AND TRAPPING (09) MINING 040 METAL MINING (10) 041 COAL MINING (11, 12) 042 CRUDE PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS EXTRACTION (13) 050 NONMETALLIC MINING AND QUARRYING, EXCEPT FUEL (14) 060 CONSTRUCTION (15, 16, 17) MANUFACTURING NONDURABLE GOODS: FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS 100 MEAT PRODUCTS (201) 101 DAIRY PRODUCTS (202) 102 CANNED AND PRESERVED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES (203) 110 GRAIN MILL PRODUCTS (204) 111 BAKERY PRODUCTS (205) 112 SUGAR AND CONFECTIONERY PRODUCTS (206) 120 BEVERAGE INDUSTRIES (208) 121 MISCELLANEOUS FOOD PREPARATIONS AND KINDRED PRODUCTS (207, 209) 122 NOT SPECIFIED FOOD INDUSTRIES 130 TOBACCO MANUFACTURES (21) NONDURABLE GOODS: TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS 132 KNITTING MILLS (225) 140 DYEING AND FINISHING TEXTILES, EXCEPT WOOL AND KNIT GOODS (226) 141 FLOOR COVERINGS, EXCEPT HARD SURFACE (227) 142 YARN, THREAD, AND FABRIC MILLS (228, 221-224) 150 MISCELLANEOUS TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS (229) NONDURABLE GOODS: APPAREL AND OTHER FINISHED TEXTILE PRODUCTS 151 APPAREL AND ACCESSORIES, EXCEPT KNIT (231-238) 152 MISCELLANEOUS FABRICATED TEXTILE PRODUCTS (239) NONDURABLE GOODS: PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS 160 PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD MILLS (261-263, 266) 161 MISCELLANEOUS PAPER AND PULP PRODUCTS (264) 162 PAPERBOARD CONTAINERS AND BOXES (265) NONDURABLE GOODS: PRINTING, PUBLISHING AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES 171 NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING AND PRINTING (271) 172 PRINTING, PUBLISHING AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES, EXCEPT NEWSPAPERS (272-279) NONDURABLE GOODS: CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS 180 PLASTICS, SYNTHETICS, AND RESINS (282) 181 DRUGS (283) 182 SOAPS AND COSMETICS (284) 190 PAINTS, VARNISHES, AND RELATED PRODUCTS (285) 191 AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS (287) 192 INDUSTRIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS CHEMICALS (281, 286, 289) NONDURABLE GOODS: PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS 200 PETROLEUM REFINING (291) 201 MISCELLANEOUS PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS (295, 299) NONDURABLE GOODS: RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTICS PRODUCTS 210 TIRES AND INNER TUBES (301) 211 OTHER RUBBER PRODUCTS, AND PLASTICS FOOTWEAR AND BELTING (302-304, 306) 212 MISCELLANEOUS PLASTIC PRODUCTS (307) NONDURABLE GOODS: LEATHER AND LEATHER PRODUCTS 220 LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING (311) 221 FOOTWEAR, EXCEPT RUBBER AND PLASTIC (313, 314) 222 LEATHER PRODUCTS, EXCEPT FOOTWEAR (315-317, 319) DURABLE GOODS: LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS, EXCEPT FURNITURE 230 LOGGING (241) 231 SAWMILLS, PLANING MILLS, AND MILLWORK (242, 243) 232 WOOD BUILDINGS AND MOBILE HOMES (245