APPENDICES >> Study Design, Content, and Administration 1992 PRE-POST 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 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 F. 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. 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. 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. Table 1: Field Administration Information Response Rate: 71.4% Length of Interview: 78.0 min No. of Respondents: 2000 - Table 2: Number and Cumulative Percent of Interviews in Two-Week Intervals from Election Day, 1990 Nov. 07-Nov. 17 836 42% Nov. 18-Dec. 01 594 72% Dec. 02-Dec. 22 413 92% Dec. 23-Jan. 05 106 97% Jan. 06-Jan. 26 51 100% NOTES {There are no notes [1] - [4]} [5] There were actually three forms of both questionnaires, since they were translated in Spanish. The Spanish language questionnaires are also "short-form" since only core items were translated. They are not, however, treated as "short-form" for "partials" for the purpose of this discussion. [6] The denominator for the calculations in this paragraph are as given in Tables 14 and 15 this Introduction. Information about the numerators appears in Table 7. [7] Text prepared by the Sampling Section of the Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, March, 1993. [8] While the Panel segments were selected from the 1980 STF1B file, most of the Cross-section segments were selected from the nearly equivalent 1990 Census file (PL94-171 file on CD ROM) which contains the block-level 1990 Census housing unit (HU) data. At the time of selection the 1990 STF1B file was not available. Therefore, the PL94-171 file was used, which had "total HU's" (rather than "occupied HU's") per block; for these Cross-section segments, linkage was designed to achieve a minimum measure of 72 TOTAL HU's per SSU. Also, since in 1990 all areas had been divided into Census Tracts and blocks, no Enumeration Districts were involved as SSU's. In other respects the second stage selection was the same for both sets of area segments. [9] See Note 3. [10] The 1986 NES was the most recent NES sample using the two-thirds National Sample. Response rate in 1986 was .701 and occupancy eligibility rate was .835. [11] Based on field experience in 1986 NES study. [12] About 55% of the base sample was assigned to the first release, September 1, 1992. [13] Released to field October 1, 1992. [14] All "reserve" replicates were to have coversheets sent to the field October 1, 1992, in sealed envelopes which were not to be opened by the interviewers until notified of their "release". As it happened, it was decided to release Replicates 4 and 5 on October 1, 1992. Replicate 3 was never released. (However, a few cases from Replicate 3 were released by mistake; these cases can be identified by using variables 3023 and 3024.) [15] An overall Panel response rate of 75% was assumed. Based on recontact response to the 1991 Persian Gulf Study: 1385 cases at 87% response rate = 1205 cases, and 615 cases at 50% response rate = 308 cases. Therefore, Overall: 1513/2000 = .756 [16] See Note 12. [17] Based on 1986 NES field experience using the two-thirds National Sample (.835). [18] No provision of update growth was applied in early estimates. Since the updating process was applied to the cross-section component of the 1992 NES Sample, and since it typically produces about 3% increase in sample lines over the count selected from the National Sample system, the update inflation factor was set at 1.03 for the cross-section component. [19] One percent of the sample was lost due to subsampling in three locked and two dangerous areas. [20] An overall Panel response rate of 75% was assumed, based on previous recontact experience (response to the 1991 Persian Gulf Study): 1385 cases at 87% response rate = 1205 cases, and 615 cases at 50% response rate = 308 cases. Overall: 1513/2000 = .756 [21] This figure was left without applying the usual growth factor for updating to the cross-section component of the sample, since this was the table presented (see Table 11) in the original planning for the study. The equivalent figure for the actually released Replicates 1,2,4 and 5) was taken with the growth factor of 1.03 applied to the cross-section component only. [22] In constructing the analysis weight, a maximum of three eligible adults was allowed. [23] For cross-sectional analysis of the 1992 NES data the combined cross-section and panel data must be used. Cross- section component data cannot be used alone. [24] The design effects from the 1988 NES are expected to be similar to those for the 1992 NES. Sampling errors for the 1992 NES have not yet been run. [25] The standard error of a percentage is a symmetric function with its maximum centered at p=50%; i.e., the standard error of p=40% and p=60% estimates are equal. >> Study Design, Content, and Administration 1993 PILOT 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 embedded in the study is an experiment designed to give us more information about whether the use of the ballot card has contributed to over-reporting. Half of the respondents were supplied with the names as well as parties of the candidates for congress when asked for whom they voted. This emulates the ballot card. The other half of the respondents were simply asked whether they voted for the Democrat or the Republican candidate. 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) Homosexuality 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 oppose 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 follow-up: strength versus amount (lot, little) (V7263, V7266, V9\7291, V7294, V7300, V7308) Experiments on length of follow-ups: 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) 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 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. >> Study Design, Content, and Administration 1994 POST STUDY DESIGN The 1994 Election Study was designed to be simultaneously the third wave in a three wave panel, which began in 1992, and also a stand-alone cross-section data collection in the traditional NES time-series. Thus, there are two components to the 1994 Post-election Study: one is a fresh cross-section component, comprising 1136 respondents who were interviewed for the first time in the weeks following the November 8, 1994 general election, and the other is a set of 759 respondents who were initially interviewed in the 1992 Pre-election Study. All of these respondents were interviewed in the 1992 Post-Election Study, and 635 of the panel respondents also gave us an interview in the 1993 Pilot Study. The full set of 1795 respondents may be treated, with appropriate weighting, as a fully representative national cross-section. The three-wave study was designed to exploit the special features of the 1992-1994 elections; a minority president 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. The design themes of the 1992-1994 Panel became particularly salient because of the electoral earthquake of the 1994 election, when the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress first time since 1952. The datafile has been enhanced, for panel respondents, with data from the 1992 and 1993 studies. Data from these earlier studies may be thought of as 'lagged' measures, for use in analysis of 1994 panel respondents. For a full description of the 1992 and 1993 study designs and content, the user is referred to the Appendices to this documentation, which contain the complete original study descriptions as they appear in the documentation for these studies. Of the 1005 respondents who make up the 1992 NES post-election cross-section, (from which the 1992-93-94 Panel respondents were drawn) over a quarter 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 shore up, or fail to shore up their support during their first term in office. The congressional battery that has been in place in NES studies since 1978 was the chief vehicle used in 1992, 1993 and 1994 to evaluate respondents' attitudes towards Congress and their congressional representatives. (For 1993, these questions were modified as necessary to refer to "last November"s election and to the incumbent rather than to the congressional candidates). These questions include: * what respondents like and dislike about congressional candidates * whether and how they have been contacted by the candidates for summary evaluations ( feeling' thermometers) of the candidates, whether they can recall congressional candidates (1993: running in this district this past November') * whether they have had contact with the incumbent candidate * where they place congressional candidates on several issue dimensions * for their evaluations of congressional performance * what the most important issue discussed in the congressional campaign in their district The core battery of congressional evaluations was supplemented by questions on term limits, (1992 and 1994) on the representative's vote on President Clinton's crime bill,(1994), or on the Persian Gulf war resolution (1992), on Clinton's deficit reduction package (1993), whether their Representative was implicated in the House banking scandal (1992) and on whether the respondent felt that his representative cared more about prestige and influence for him/herself rather than solving the problems of the congressional district(1994). Another major theme of the 1992-1993-1994 Panel is the assessment of how well the "Clinton coalition" is faring. The 1992 Study, since it occurred in a Presidential year, had a full set of items bearing on the evaluation of candidate Clinton, some of which were repeated in 1993 and 1994. These repeated items include: * Summary evaluations (feeling thermometer) of Clinton * Traits and affects for Clinton * Placement of Clinton on several issue dimensions (92 and 94 only) * Placement of Clinton on liberal-conservative dimension * approval ratings of several aspects of Clinton's performance in office (93 and 94 only) * For whom R voted (92); recall of Presidential vote (94) * Evaluation of the economy Each of the studies includes specific measures relating to evaluation of Clinton, including likes/dislikes in 1992, opinion about NAFTA and the federal budget deficit in 1993, who the respondent would vote for if the election were held today (1993). Emphasis on the panel aspects of the design should not obscure the fact that the 1994 data can be used to support cross-sectional analyses of the 1994 electorate. Note that almost all of the items listed below were also asked in the 1992 Election Study. * Campaign interest * Media exposure * Measures of partisanship (party likes/dislikes and party identification), which party would better handle certain public problems * Summary evaluations (feeling thermometers) on major political figures and social groups * Voting behavior * Views on issues: most important problem and several issue dimensions, including defense spending, assistance to blacks, spending and services trade-off, health insurance, women's role, and recent proposals to reform welfare. * Preferences on federal budget allocations * Electoral participation * Retrospective and prospective national and personal economic evaluations * Liberal-conservative self-placement * Political information held by respondent * Values, including moral traditionalism, egalitarianism, and attitudes toward race, as well as individual items on school prayer and abortion * Religious affiliation and behavior * Occupation, work force status, home ownership and residential mobility, nationality, education, income, and number of children being raised. The 1992 Election Study, in addition to the topics already mentioned, included questions on social altruism and social connectedness of the respondent; assessments of U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War and U.S. foreign policy goals; opinions of the respondent about racial and ethnic stereotypes, on school integration and affirmative action; attitudes towards immigrants (particularly Hispanics and Asians); opinions on immigration policy and bilingual education; and opinions on the rights of homosexuals; on sexual harassment and women's rights. In addition to the congressional and Clinton evaluations already mentioned, the 1993 Pilot Study included a number of items intended to tap the sources and strength of support for Ross Perot. As a pilot study, the 1993 Study included developmental work in a number of areas. One such area is the interest group basis of political attitudes. Questions were asked about the perceived interests of several groups (wealthy, poor, middle class, blacks, whites),as well as self and national interest in three domains: national health insurance, affirmative action, and school choice. The 1993 Study also includes a number of questions relating to attitudes toward homosexuals, and about policies affecting homosexuals. Finally, a number of experiments in the survey response were implemented in the study, including: * an experiment in wording of the vote choice for Representative question * reversing order of self versus political object placement on liberal-conservative 7-pt scale * certainty probe on liberal-conservative scale; self and other objects NOTES ON SURVEY ADMINISTRATION FOR 1992, 1993 AND 1994 STUDIES Field Periods Like the 1992 Pre-and Post-Election Study, the 1994 study design involved face-to face, paper and pencil interviews of respondents randomly selected from the SRC's national area probability sample. The 1994 field period was November 9, 1994 through January 9, 1995, with 40% of the 1795 interviews taken in the first week, and 68% of the interviews within three weeks of the November 8 General Election. This is a significant improvement over the performance of the 1992 Post Election Study, in which only 42.3% of the Post-Election interviews were taken at the end of three weeks. In the 1992 Pre-Election Study, 2485 citizens were interviewed in person in the 9 weeks prior to the November 3, 1992 election of whom 1126 were cross section respondents. 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 1. In the weeks following the election, 2255 pre-election respondents were reinterviewed; 1005 of them were cross-section. Sample Replicates To more closely tailor the field effort to the actual sample performance, NES samples are randomly divided into "replicates" of varying sizes. The usual practice is hold some replicates in reserve. In 1992, additional replicates for both panel and cross section were released midway through the Pre-Election field period; in 1994, all panel sample was released at the beginning of the field period. It did not prove necessary to release additional cross-section replicates. Response Rates for the 1994 Election Study 1994 Post Election N Resp. Rate X-Section 1036 72.1% Panel 759 77.0% Overall 1795 74.1% Notes on the 1993 Pilot Study 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. The Field period was Sept. 23 - Nov. 24, 1993, roughly halfway between the 1992 and 1994 Election Studies. 750 interviews were taken, with a response rate of 74.6%. The study was CATI. The average interview length was 42 minutes. Because there were a number of experiments, each respondent was randomly assigned to one of four forms. Randomization of the Feeling Thermometers in the 1993 Pilot Study 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 AUTOQUEST CATI system has a randomizing function, and this was implemented for the feeling thermometers in the 1993 Pilot Study. No information as to the order in which the thermometer items were asked for a given respondent was preserved. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IDENTIFICATION AND CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES Congressional Ballot Cards, Candidate Lists, and Candidate Numbers In all NES Post-Election surveys since 1978, respondents have been asked several questions about their particular Congresspersons and Senators. These questions in the survey require the insertion by the interviewer, during pre-editing, of the names of candidates. See, for example, question B11, which includes feeling thermometers for the various candidates. Each candidate and Senator is assigned a unique number that reflects his or her incumbency status and party. (See MASTER CODES Candidate Number). The Candidate Lists used by the interviewers, which show which candidates are associated with which congressional district and with which numbers they are tagged, are Notes 4 and 5 in the Master Codes section of this documentation. Congressional District Determination From 1978 through 1990, the congressional district in which an NES sample segment was located was determined by the SRC's sampling section. This was usually done by comparing very detailed maps of the sample segment and of congressional districts. Congressional district determination for the 1992 and 1994 studies presented complications due to the massive redistricting following the 1990 U.S. Census, and due to its panel nature -- movers had to be tracked and their new district determined. Handling of Congressional Incumbency Where Redistricting has Occurred (1992) Throughout the documentation for the 1992 study, 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, 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. Congressional District Assignments For Movers Respondents to the 1992 Post-election Study were the recipients of several mailings, which we used to track address changes, and minimize panel attrition due to "lost" respondents. When the United States Post Office returned information indicating that respondents had changed their addresses, the study staff attempted to determine, usually by calling local election offices, in which congressional district the respondent now lived. The substantive decision, for 1993 and for 1994 panel waves, was to ask the R to evaluate the congressional candidates in the district in which h/she was now living, and about whom h/she was presumably receiving information. In some instances, information about where a respondent was now living was not available until the field period, when interviewers were able to track the respondents by talking to former neighbors, etc. In 1994, the interviewers were instructed to contact local electoral offices directly to determine if R's change of address involved also a change of congressional district. A candidate list for R's new district was then prepared, and used to pre-edit the respondent's questionnaire. A similar procedure was used in the 1993 Pilot Study. A Reliability Check of Congressional District Assignments Since one of the chief themes of the 1992-93-94 Panel Study is the evaluation over time of respondents' attitudes toward their congressional representatives, and because of the complications of following movers and of redistricting, NES staff made an intensive effort to assess the both the accuracy and the stability of congressional district assignments. Their findings will appear as Technical Report 52, "Accuracy and Stability of Congressional District Assignments in the 1992-93-94 National Election Studies." That report will be available by early June, 1995. For the 1994 Election Study, we decided to send the entire set of sample segment selections to an outside source for computerized matching of congressional district boundaries and the Census geocodes for the SRC sample segments. In this process, we completely checked the 1992 Congressional District assignments. Approximately 71, or 2.8% of the 1992 respondents (N = 2485) were assigned to the wrong congressional district, because of errors in the original determination of the district (misreading maps, incorrect information from local election offices, etc.) These misassignments were corrected for the 1994 field work, but not for the 1993 Pilot Study, where 4.5% of the 750 respondents were misassigned. In both the 1992 and 1994 Studies, all other causes of being asked about the wrong congressional candidates (e.g., wrongly pre-edited questionnaires, inappropriate determination of congressional districts for movers) totaled less than one percent of the respondents. More important than these errors is the simple question of the stability of the congressional objects themselves. The candidates we ask the respondent to evaluate can change, because a) the respondent moves; b) his/her incumbent does not stand for re-election, or c) there is redistricting. respondent lives. 3% of the panel respondents were affected by 1993 and 1994 redistricting, so that they were not asked to evaluate the same candidates in 1992 and 1994. Incumbents did not run in the general election for 15% of the panel cases, so the congressional candidates they were asked to evaluate in 1994 were different than 1993 or 1992. About 8% of the panel respondents moved between their initial 1992 interview and the 1994 Election Study. Finally, it should be noted that about 3% of the 1994 respondents are registered in districts different than the one in which they were interviewed. Consequently, their vote choice was between a different set of candidates than those about whom they were asked. This dataset contains a number of variables, v22-v32, v80, v7004, and V7007, which record the various contingencies discussed above. Users interested in more detail about these matters should request Technical Report 52 from NES Project Staff. >> Study Design, Content, and Administration 1995 PILOT Study Design The 1995 Pilot Study was conducted between August 3 and September 10th, 1995. The study is a one-wave reinterview of a randomly selected subset of respondents with telephones from the fresh cross section portion of the 1994 Post-Election Study. 1994 "panel" respondents who had been interviewed in 1992 were not eligible for reinterview in the 1995 Pilot Study. The randomly selected sample consisted of 704 respondents from 1994; 486 of these respondents agreed to be interviewed in 1995. The response rate is thus .69 (486/704). The number of refusals was 95. The remainder of the non-interviews are persons with whom contact was lost, or who were unavailable during the study period, for such reasons as illness or absence from home. The study mode was Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing, or CATI. The average interview length was 44.8 minutes. Study Content The content of the study reflects the NES commitment to improve measures of candidate evaluation, the impact of the campaign, values and predispositions, the comparative study of elections, and other responses to a stimulus letter calling for ideas for content sent to the user community on November 4, 1994. Specific topic areas in the study include: * an experiment between different measures of affective reactions to political figures * a module of items that are being concurrently tested in many other nations as part of a comparative study of politics * a set of 12 items asking respondents to make tradeoffs between programs, taxes and the budget deficit * a set of items designed to measure attitudes toward the environment and environmental policy * a new measure of "humanitarianism" * an extensive set of items re attention to the media, intended to capture exposure to the political campaigns. In order to include all of the content, and also in order to test between competing instrumentation, there were two forms of the questionnaire. Rosters of items, such as the thermometer, were randomized in administration, to minimize order effects. Data and Documentation Because the 486 Pilot Study respondents had also been interviewed in the 1994 Post Election Study, their data from that study has been merged onto the datafile. There are 486 cases in the dataset (in other words, 1994 respondents who were not reinterviewed in 1995 are not included in the dataset). The dataset is an ASCII, or "raw" dataset, accompanied by SAS and SPSS control cards. Missing data definition cards are also included. Documentation for the 1995 Pilot Study is available as an ASCII text file. 1994 Post-Election Study documentation is available on the NES CD-ROM. It will shortly be accessible at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu or through the NES Home Page: http://www.umich.edu/~nes. It is not included as part of the 1995 Pilot Study release. >> Study Design, Content, and Administration 1996 PRE-POST STUDY DESIGN The 1996 National Election Study entailed both a pre-election interview and a post-election re-interview. About three-fourths of the 1996 cases consist of empaneled respondents who were first interviewed in the 1994 or 1992 National Election Study. A freshly drawn cross-section sample makes up the balance of the 1996 cases. (Details of the sample design are given in "Sample Design of the 1996 Pre/Post Election Studies", in Appendix C. Altogether, 1714 citizens were interviewed in the 9 weeks prior to the November 5, 1996 election. To permit analysis of the impact of the unfolding election campaign, the pre-election sample was divided into four subsample replicates, which were released approximately two weeks apart. 1316 of the pre-election interviews were conducted with panel respondents; 398 with cross-section respondents. In the weeks following the election, 1534 pre-election respondents were reinterviewed: 1197 panel, 337 cross-section. This post-election survey included a mode experiment in which respondents were randomly assigned to be interviewed either by telephone or face-to-face. 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 used together to create a combined nationally representative sample of the American electorate. The 1996 NES data set includes a weight which incorporates sampling, nonresponse and post- stratification factors, (V3), for analysis of the 1996 NES combined sample (Panel component cases plus Cross-section supplement cases). A Time Series Weight (V5) which corrects for Panel attrition (but does not incorporate sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification adjustments) should be used in analyses 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 1996 Pre- and Post-Election Study", and the documentation for V3, and V5 for further information. The frequencies that appear in this codebook are unweighted. A set of files, data, weights, and data documentation, designed to enable panel analyses of the 1992-94-96 data become available sometime late in 1997; announcements concerning the release of data for panel analysis are found at the NES website, www.umich.edu/~nes. The present release has been prepared for cross-section and time series analyses. STUDY CONTENT AND SUBSTANTIVE THEMES The content for the 1996 Election Study reflects its double duty, both as the traditional presidential election year time-series data collection and as a panel study. Substantive themes represented in the 1996 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 and evaluation of House candidates * political participation: turnout 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 * positions on social welfare issues including: 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; women's roles; prayer in the schools; the rights of homosexuals and the death penalty * racial and ethnic stereotypes; opinions on affirmative action; attitudes towards immigrants * opinions about the nation's most important problem * values and predispositions: moral traditionalism; political efficacy; egalitarianism; humanitarianism individualism; trust in government * social altruism and social connectedness * 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. Several new themes are included in the 1996 study: THE CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN: To better understand the dynamics of congressional campaigns, the pre-election wave contains a core battery of campaign-related congressional items (including candidate recall, thermometer ratings, ideological placements, and vote intention). ISSUE IMPORTANCE AND UNCERTAINTY: Several issue questions include "uncertainty" and "importance" follow-ups for both respondent self-placements ("How certain are you of your position on this scale?" "How important is this issue to you?") and candidate placements (e.g. "How certain are you of Bob Dole's position on this scale?" "How important is this issue to Bob Dole?"). COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS: An eight-minute module of questions developed by a consortium of electoral scholars from 52 polities is included in the post-election interview. Designed to facilitate comparative analysis of political attitudes and voting behavior, the same questions are being asked in similar form in national election studies around the world, and the resulting survey data will eventually be merged with contextual data on electoral laws and political institutions to produce a rich cross-national data set. This module is included as questions T1-T16 in the post-election survey. ISSUE COVERAGE: New issue items in the areas of crime, the environment, gun control, and income inequality are included. A six-item battery carried forward from the 1995 Pilot Study taps respondents' reactions to proposed trade-offs among domestic spending, deficit reduction, and tax cuts. THE ENVIRONMENT: New items from the 1995 Pilot Study tap perceptions of environmental conditions (air quality and the safety of drinking water in the nation and in the respondent's own community), environmental priorities (ranging from global warming to cleaning up lakes and parks), self-placements and placements of candidates and parties on environmental issues (trading off environmental protection against jobs and living standards, and supporting or opposing government environmental regulations on businesses), and the relative effectiveness of national, state, and local governments in dealing with environmental problems. SOCIAL CAPITAL: Several measures of social connectedness are repeated from the 1992 survey. Items tapping trust in people and trust in government are repeated in the pre- and post-election waves to facilitate analysis of the effect of the campaign and election on broader social attitudes. A battery of items on membership and activity in a wide variety of social, political, religious, and civic organizations is included in the post-election questionnaire. This battery includes several questions on as many as four groups in each of twenty-two categories of organizations. Because of the large number of variables produced from these questions, two means of accessing these data are provided; one set of variables which summarize the groups data is available without any unusual effort by the user. A full complement of variables of interest to the specialist in groups membership and participation is also readily available by following instructions provided in Appendix A. MEDIA EXPOSURE: New media exposure, reception, and attention items developed in the 1995 Pilot Study include talk radio items, more specific exposure items for network and local television news, and reception items asking respondents to match news anchors with the networks they work for. A battery of exposure items for entertainment television programs provides an indirect measure of exposure to campaign advertisements. There is also a new open-ended item on recollection of a memorable campaign ad, some expansion and reorganization of items tapping attention to the campaign in various media. Congressional Ballot Cards, Candidate Lists, and Candidate Numbers In the usual NES Post-Election survey, and for 1996, in the Pre-Election survey as well, respondents are asked several questions about their particular Congressperson and Senators. In previous years, 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). The use of Computer-Assisted Interviewing software means that information about respondents' congressional district and about candidates and incumbents names (including retiring incumbents) and parties is maintained and periodically updated in a computerized database; this information is loaded into the laptop computers used by interviewers and accessed to provide the correct CD and candidate information for displaying and entering responses to the relevant questions. Each candidate and Senator is assigned a unique number that reflects his or her incumbency status and party. (See Candidate Lists) Particular questions in the survey, which include feeling thermometers for the various candidates, automatically appear on screen with the correct name filled in. The Candidate Lists stored in the database, which show which candidates are associated with which congressional district and with which numbers they are tagged, can also be found here, as can a sample ballot card. Candidates' names were identified by referring to the results of primary elections published in Congressional Quarterly. In 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. In these cases, the names of those candidates with the greatest chance of winning their party's nomination were loaded into the database. Forecasts of likely winners assumed that incumbents were likely to win their primaries and that unopposed non-incumbents would win. Other races were forecast by Board member Charles Franklin, using a probit model of all 1996 contested primaries involving non-incumbents and utilizing FEC data from August 1, 1996. As soon as the outcome of the primary was known, the correct candidate information was entered into the database and the new version was loaded onto the appropriate interviewers' laptop computers. In nearly all races the forecasted winner was correct. Further details can be found at the documentation for Pre-Election questions B2a and B2b. Features of a CAI questionnaire Using the capabilities of computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) in the 1996 NES enabled the introduction of several features that would not be feasible using a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The most significant of these for users of this data are: randomization within batteries or sequences of questions; application of half-sampling to some questions; and random order of presentation of blocks of questions. Randomization within batteries refers to presenting, in a randomly determined order, a series of questions about the same objects (or people). An example would be the questions about the respondent's likes and dislikes of the three main Presidential candidates where the names of Clinton, Dole and Perot were inserted randomly as the first, second or third person to be asked about in this series. Randomization of names/objects in this way avoids ordering effects that might be obtained if, for example, the candidates were always asked about in the same order in every series of questions where a parallel question is asked about each of the three. Questions where randomization of order within a series was in force are clearly identified in the codebook. Randomization variables, which allow the user to identify the order of presentation, are provided for all instances of randomized presentation. A few questions, primarily open-ended questions, were half-sampled, so that a randomly selected half of respondents were asked the question. Finally, an order experiment, where a sequence of closed-ended questions was asked early in the interview for a random half of respondents and late in the interview for the other half, was included as part of the mode comparison experiment described below. For both of these features, the relevant codebook entries contain explanatory notes. All random selections were programmed into the computer application of the questionnaire and occurred automatically and independently of other circumstances of the interview. CAI eliminates the preparation of a paper and pencil version which would previously have been published in the codebook. STUDY ADMINISTRATION Interviewing for the pre-election survey began on September 3, 1996 and concluded on November 4, 1996. The average length of interview in the pre-election survey was 74 minutes. The overall response rate was 71%. (See "Response Rates" below for a complete discussion.) The post-election interviewing occurred between November 6 and December 31, 1996 inclusive, with an average interview length of 70 minutes. The overall reinterview rate was 90%, with further details available in the Response Rate section below. Sample "Releases" in the Pre-election survey Both parts of the sample (panel and cross-section) were randomly subdivided into four quarter sample releases, each of which is a proper, random subsample of the NES sample. Two additional 'reserve' replicates of cross-section cases were held in abeyance until it was determined that the additional sample lines would be needed to attain study goals. Replicates 1 through 4 were considered the "base sample," certain to be released. The release dates for sample replicates were: Replicate Date of release 1 September 3, 1996 2 September 12, 1996 3 September 26, 1996 4 October 10, 1996 5 (Reserve) September 26, 1996 (with replicate 3) 6 (Reserve) October 10, 1996 (with replicate 4) For a full description of the sample design and implementation, see "1996 SAMPLE DESIGN". Pre-election study: assignment to telephone mode 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 study staff are available to interview them. We estimated that between 40 and 80 respondents might have moved to areas in which SRC did not have interviewers in the field. Our priority was to interview as many panel respondents as possible, but we did not want to incur the additional costs associated with interviewer travel. Accordingly, panel respondents who had moved 'out-of-range' for a face-to-face interview were converted to phone mode. The criterion set for deciding if a case was 'out-of-range' was 90 minutes driving time one-way from the interviewer's home to the respondent's address under local usual driving conditions. The total number of panel respondents that we interviewed who were "out of range" for this reason was 47. Post-Election Mode Experiment: Design and Implementation In contrast with the usual NES practice of conducting all post-election interviews in person, half of the respondents in the post-election wave of the 1996 survey were interviewed by telephone, with post-election respondents randomly assigned (except in extreme circumstances) to phone or face-to-face administration. The telephone mode used the same computerized questionnaire developed for the face-to-face post-election interviews and was conducted by the same interviewers. The mode experiment provides a direct comparison of the effects of mode of interview on important indicators of data quality and comparability. Cases were assigned to either telephone or face-to-face mode at the sample segment level. Every effort to retain randomly assigned cases in their assigned mode was made. Respondents who had been interviewed by telephone in the pre-election study were disqualified from random assignment to mode; all those reinterviews were done by telephone, a total of 47 cases. Respondents who did not have telephones and respondents who were not able to participate in the mode experiment because of a physical limitation that prevented them from being interviewed by one mode or another were also excluded, which totaled 130 additional cases (24 of these were completed by telephone). No changes in mode of interview because of respondent preference or for ease of administration were permitted. All prospective respondents received two incentives in the mail: a check for $10 and a small gift. Included in the mailing to telephone mode respondents was a sealed respondent booklet with the candidate ballot folded inside. The contact letter instructed respondents to set these materials aside until told to open them by the interviewer. Interviewers followed procedures to ascertain that respondents were using the booklet and ballot card appropriately and to note deviations from the instructions. Evaluation of problems in study implementation Two implementation problems arose in the post-election field administration. This resulted in two unintended systematic deviations from standard administration. 145 cases in the phone mode were mailed a respondent booklet that included the wrong ballot card. As soon as this problem was discovered, new respondent booklets with correct ballot cards were mailed by overnight mail to these respondents. Approximately 50 interviews were conducted where the respondent had the incorrect ballot card; in these cases interviewers read the correct ballot card information to the respondent. A full report to be issued will analyze these data to identify any systematic differences related to this implementation error. It was discovered early in the data collection period that 39 interviews were completed using the training version of the survey instrument, due to a technical problem in transmitting files to the field. The training version contained no randomized presentation of questions and lacked several last minute changes to the interview. Call-backs to 37 of these 39 respondents allowed us to collect data on the several missed questions. A report analyzing these cases for differential impact of the use of the training questionnaire is in preparation. RESPONSE RATES The response rate in the pre-election study was 71%. Among panel respondents the response (reinterview) rate was 76%; among cross-section respondents it was 60%. The overall reinterview/response rate in the post-election interviewing was 90%. Among panel respondents in the post-election survey, the response rate was 91% and among cross-section respondents it was 85%. The response rate in face-to-face mode (including all cases in this mode, experimentally assigned and excluded) was 89% and for telephone mode it was 91%. INTERVIEW COMPLETION RATE Completion rates for the pre-election sample releases, for pre-election time periods, and for post-election time periods are presented here. Table 1 presents the percentage completions per quarter sample replicate (replicates 3 and 4 include the reserve cases added to those replicates); table 2 shows the percentage of completions per two week time period in the pre-election survey. Table 3 lays out the number of interviews taken for each week elapsing after the Nov. 5 General Election. In 1996, 29% of the interviews were completed in the first week after the election and 86% in the first three weeks; progress was evenly divided between face-to-face and telephone modes. Table 1: % Completions by release (pre-election survey) RELEASE Total Panel Cross-section 1 28% 28% 18% 2 27 27 24 3+5 23 23 23 4+6 23 22 25 Table 2: Percent Completions by two week period (pre-election survey) DATES Total Panel Cross-section 9/3-9/16 19% 20% 18% 9/17-10/1 24 24 22 10/2-10/16 23 23 23 10/17-10/30 24 24 26 10/31-11/4 10 10 12 Table 3: 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. 6-Nov.12 449 449 29% Nov.13-Nov.19 551 1000 65 Nov.20-Nov.26 314 1314 86 Nov.27-Dec. 3 91 1405 92 Dec.4- Dec. 10 84 1489 97 Dec.11-Dec.17 32 1521 99 Dec.18-Dec.24 10 1531 99 Dec.25-Dec.31 3 1534 100% FILE STRUCTURE The AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1996 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY are available in logical record length (LRECL) format. The data are sorted in ascending order by respondent number, and contain 1,657 variables for 1714 respondents. The machine-readable codebook, which provides complete formatting and other information for all variables accompanies the data. In addition, a set of SAS and SPSS control statements has been prepared for this collection. The control statements contain formatting information as well as variable labels, value labels and missing data specifications for all variables in the collection. The data can also be accessed directly through software packages that do not use SAS or SPSS control statements by specifying the record locations of the desired variables. The record locations for all variables are provided in the codebook. NOTES ON 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. 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. 1996 SPECIAL NOTE - CHANGES IN CODING BETWEEN PRE AND POST Several questions which were asked in the Pre-election interview and then asked again in the Post-Election interview had some differences between the versions used. Variables where pre and post codes (and some code labels) don't match on repeated questions: Pre Post 960369 1273 (Code 4 label; Respon. Booklet identical both waves) 960370 1274 (Code 4 label; Respon. Booklet identical both waves) 960371 1275 (Code 4 label; Respon. Booklet identical both waves) 960375 1277 (Code 4 label; Respon. Booklet identical both waves) 960376 1278 (Code 4 label; Respon. Booklet identical both waves) 960377 1279 (Code 4 label; Respon. Booklet identical both waves) 960378 1280 (Code 4 label; Respon. Booklet identical both waves) 960566 1251 (Code 7 in Pre; code 4 in Post) 960569 1259 (Codes 1, 2 in Pre; codes 1, 5 in Post) For variables 960369-371, 960375-378 / 961273-1275, 961277-1280 (7 point liberal-conservative scale questions) the differences appeared onscreen to the interviewer but the labeled Respondent Booklet was accurate (complete code 4 label) and identical for both interviews. NEW WEIGHTS FOR THE 1996 STUDY (RELEASED MARCH 1998) The steps taken to address the 1996 NES overestimation of voting in the 1996 presidential election resulted in the development of post-stratified weights which account for individual selection probability, regional differences in household nonresponse, and misrepresentation of any age by education subgroups. These revised, CPS-standardized weights were computed for the 1994 NES Post and 1996 NES Pre and Post Election data sets. Users of previous weights released with the 1994 and 1996 data will find that these weights extend and combine the features of previously released weights. Similar weights were computed for the 1992 cross-section cases; these weights will be included in an upcoming combined 1992-1994-1996 data file. V960005A and V960005B, the two new weight variables for 1996, are released for the first time for use with the 1996 NES data. A review of the findings that led to the construction of these new weights and full details of their development and effect are described in new Appendix B, "Post-Stratified Cross-sectional Analysis Weights for the 1992, 1994 and 1996 NES Data." The recommendation to explore developing these weights was made by Warren Miller and Merrill Shanks and authorized by the NES Board of Overseers at its September 1997 meeting. The SRC Sampling Section, under the direction of Steve Heeringa, completed the work and the technical report in consultation with the NES Director of Studies. There are two weights, one to be applied to the pre-election sample (V960005A) and the other which is for use with the post-election sample (V960005B). The post-election sample weight takes into account attrition that occurred between the pre- and post-election surveys. In analyses using variables from both the pre- and post-election data, the post-election weight should be applied. Use of either weight is appropriate only for the full sample, cross-section and panel cases combined. >> Study Design, Content, and Administration 1997 PILOT Study Design The 1997 Pilot Study was conducted between September 5 and October 1, 1997. The study is a reinterview of a subset of respondents with telephones from the 1996 Post-Election Study. All fresh-cross section cases for 1996 that completed a post-election interview and for which telephone numbers were available were included in the 1997 pilot. The balance of cases consisted of cases from the two previous waves, the 1994 'panel' cases and the 1992 'panel' cases for which telephone numbers were available and a post-election interview was conducted in 1996. Each of these panel components was represented proportionally in the initial sample for 1997. The initial sample consisted of 724 respondents from 1996; 551 of these respondents completed an interview in 1997. The response rate is thus .76 (551/724). The number of refusals was 22. The remainder of the non-interviews are persons with whom contact was never made, or who were unavailable during the study period, for such reasons as illness or absence from home. The study mode was Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing ("CATI".) The average interview length was 45.3 minutes. Study Content The content of the study reflects the NES commitment to improve measures of group mobilization, interest articulation and representation, group-based political reasoning, race and racial attitudes and policy, issue attitudes, human and social capital, social choice, theories of the survey response, and other responses to a stimulus letter calling for ideas for content sent to the user community on November 11, 1996. Specific topic areas in the study include: MOBILIZATION AND NON ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION: A battery designed to improve NES instrumentation on non-electoral political participation and mobilization; specifically, respondents' efforts to contact public officials at different levels of government during the non electoral season and their reasons for contact. GROUP-BASED POLITICS: Elaborated testing of long-standing NES instrumentation on group closeness designed to evaluate both "traditional" NES instrumentation and investigate possible additions and improvements. Group difference and group conflict as a basis of current mass politics: Perceptions of paired "opposing" social groups on issue, ideology, party placements and vote choice. The groups include black and white people, Christian fundamentalists and gays and lesbians, and men and women. There is an embedded experiment testing the effects of focusing on group difference and conflict on social trust and political trust and interest. Group threat as a basis of group-based politics: A split ballot of items involving an experimental manipulation of the level of threat in different domains and prejudices about Blacks and Christian Fundamentalists. RESPONSE LATENCY: Activated timings of response latencies on several questions to extend recent NES work on certainty. EVALUATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS AND THE SUPREME COURT: Exploration of a new battery of items to improve current NES instrumentation and extend parallel measurement across governmental institutions. RELIGION AND POLITICS: Further Pilot work on the role of religion in citizens' political thinking; attitudes toward the role of religion and religious institutions in American society and politics. The use of CATI enabled a number of experimental treatments within the survey instrument. Random assignment to question wording, early-late placement and presentation order were applied to numerous question sequences. Rosters of items, such as the thermometer and placements of groups and individuals on scales, were randomized in administration, to minimize order effects. Indicator variables that document the use of split-ballot and randomization features are found in the codebook. Data and Documentation Because the 551 Pilot Study respondents had also been interviewed in the 1996 Pre- and Post Election Studies, their data from those studies has been merged onto the datafile. There are 551 cases in the dataset (in other words, it contains 1996 data only for those respondents who were reinterviewed in 1997). The dataset is an ASCII, or "raw" dataset, accompanied by SAS and SPSS control cards. Missing data definition cards are also included. Documentation for the 1997 Pilot Study is available as an ASCII text file on the NES website (http://www.umich.edu/~nes) and from the ICPSR (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu). 1996 Election Studies documentation is also available (separately) on both websites; it is not included as part of the 1997 Pilot Study release. >> 1996 - ACCESSING GROUP-SPECIFIC DATA Please also see related paragraphs in the Introductory section of the codebook for general information about the 'Groups' section in the Post. For data users interested in a greater level of detail for the Post 'Groups' section (R3-R7w), the raw data for the 1996 Study includes additional data which are not represented in the codebook and are not included in the SAS and SPSS data definition files provided with the Study data. To access these additional variables, the column numbers may be cut and pasted from the listings below and then inserted into the SAS or SPSS data definition file that the user is submitting. SAS and SPSS missing data assignments also may be cut and pasted into the user's file. This additional information provides the specific responses to questions about individual groups in each category--Group1, Group2, Group3 or Group4. GROUP SPECIFIC DATA For the question on group membership, the category summary variable identifies the specific groups of which R is a member and additional group-specific vars are not necessary. For the questions on dues/contributions, meetings/activities, and political discussion, however, more than 2 responses were possible and the summary variables could not identify the particular response for an individual group. The responses categories are: "In the past 12 months have you paid dues or given any money to this group? Which is that? (Dues, contributions, or both?)" 1. Dues 3. Contributions 5. Both 7. Other (specify) 8. DK 9. NA 0. Inap, R is not involved with any group in this category; no further group mentioned in this category (Groups 2-4 only); no post IW "In the last 12 months have you taken part in any activities sponsored by this group or attended a meeting of this group?" 1. Attended a meeting 3. Taken part in activities 5. Both 8. DK 9. NA 0. Inap, R is not involved with any groups in this category; no further group mentioned in this category (Groups 2-4 only); no post IW "How often does this group discuss politics-- often, sometimes, rarely, or never?" 1. Often 2. Sometimes 3. Rarely 4. Never 8. DK 9. NA 0. Inap, R is not involved with any groups in this category; no further group mentioned in this category (Groups 2-4 only); no post IW COMPLETE SET OF COLUMN LOCATIONS (Within each group category, Group 1 is identified in the "A" variable, Group 2 in the "B" variable, Group 3 in the "C" variable", and Group 4 in the "D" variable). SEE MISSING DATA HEADINGS BELOW TO IDENTIFY QUESTIONS WITHIN GROUP CATEGORIES. V961344 5756 V961345 5757-5760 V961346 5761-5764 V961346A 5765 V961346B 5766 V961346C 5767 V961346D 5768 V961347 5769-5772 V961347A 5773 V961347B 5774 V961347C 5775 V961347D 5776 V961348 5777-5780 V961348A 5781 V961348B 5782 V961348C 5783 V961348D 5784 V961349 5785 V961350 5786-5789 V961351 5790-5793 V961351A 5794 V961351B 5795 V961351C 5796 V961351D 5797 V961352 5798-5801 V961352A 5802 V961352B 5803 V961352C 5804 V961352D 5805 V961353 5806-5809 V961353A 5810 V961353B 5811 V961353C 5812 V961353D 5813 V961354 5814 V961355 5815-5818 V961356 5819-5822 V961356A 5823 V961356B 5824 V961356C 5825 V961356D 5826 V961357 5827-5830 V961357A 5831 V961357B 5832 V961357C 5833 V961357D 5834 V961358 5835-5838 V961358A 5839 V961358B 5840 V961358C 5841 V961358D 5842 V961359 5843 V961360 5844-5847 V961361 5848-5851 V961361A 5852 V961361B 5853 V961361C 5854 V961361D 5855 V961362 5856-5859 V961362A 5860 V961362B 5861 V961362C 5862 V961362D 5863 V961363 5864-5867 V961363A 5868 V961363B 5869 V961363C 5870 V961363D 5871 V961364 5872 V961365 5873-5876 V961366 5877-5880 V961366A 5881 V961366B 5882 V961366C 5883 V961366D 5884 V961367 5885-5888 V961367A 5889 V961367B 5890 V961367C 5891 V961367D 5892 V961368 5893-5896 V961368A 5897 V961368B 5898 V961368C 5899 V961368D 5900 V961369 5901 V961370 5902-5905 V961371 5906-5909 V961371A 5910 V961371B 5911 V961371C 5912 V961371D 5913 V961372 5914-5917 V961372A 5918 V961372B 5919 V961372C 5920 V961372D 5921 V961373 5922-5925 V961373A 5926 V961373B 5927 V961373C 5928 V961373D 5929 V961374 5930 V961375 5931-5934 V961376 5935-5938 V961376A 5939 V961376B 5940 V961376C 5941 V961376D 5942 V961377 5943-5946 V961377A 5947 V961377B 5948 V961377C 5949 V961377D 5950 V961378 5951-5954 V961378A 5955 V961378B 5956 V961378C 5957 V961378D 5958 V961379 5959 V961380 5960-5963 V961381 5964-5967 V961381A 5968 V961381B 5969 V961381C 5970 V961381D 5971 V961382 5972-5975 V961382A 5976 V961382B 5977 V961382C 5978 V961382D 5979 V961383 5980-5983 V961383A 5984 V961383B 5985 V961383C 5986 V961383D 5987 V961384 5988 V961385 5989-5992 V961386 5993-5996 V961386A 5997 V961386B 5998 V961386C 5999 V961386D 6000 V961387 6001-6004 V961387A 6005 V961387B 6006 V961387C 6007 V961387D 6008 V961388 6009-6012 V961388A 6013 V961388B 6014 V961388C 6015 V961388D 6016 V961389 6017 V961390 6018-6021 V961391 6022-6025 V961391A 6026 V961391B 6027 V961391C 6028 V961391D 6029 V961392 6030-6033 V961392A 6034 V961392B 6035 V961392C 6036 V961392D 6037 V961393 6038-6041 V961393A 6042 V961393B 6043 V961393C 6044 V961393D 6045 V961394 6046 V961395 6047-6050 V961396 6051-6054 V961396A 6055 V961396B 6056 V961396C 6057 V961396D 6058 V961397 6059-6062 V961397A 6063 V961397B 6064 V961397C 6065 V961397D 6066 V961398 6067-6070 V961398A 6071 V961398B 6072 V961398C 6073 V961398D 6074 V961399 6075 V961400 6076-6079 V961401 6080-6083 V961401A 6084 V961401B 6085 V961401C 6086 V961401D 6087 V961402 6088-6091 V961402A 6092 V961402B 6093 V961402C 6094 V961402D 6095 V961403 6096-6099 V961403A 6100 V961403B 6101 V961403C 6102 V961403D 6103 V961404 6104 V961405 6105-6108 V961406 6109-6112 V961406A 6113 V961406B 6114 V961406C 6115 V961406D 6116 V961407 6117-6120 V961407A 6121 V961407B 6122 V961407C 6123 V961407D 6124 V961408 6125-6128 V961408A 6129 V961408B 6130 V961408C 6131 V961408D 6132 V961409 6133 V961410 6134-6137 V961411 6138-6141 V961411A 6142 V961411B 6143 V961411C 6144 V961411D 6145 V961412 6146-6149 V961412A 6150 V961412B 6151 V961412C 6152 V961412D 6153 V961413 6154-6157 V961413A 6158 V961413B 6159 V961413C 6160 V961413D 6161 V961414 6162 V961415 6163-6166 V961416 6167-6170 V961416A 6171 V961416B 6172 V961416C 6173 V961416D 6174 V961417 6175-6178 V961417A 6179 V961417B 6180 V961417C 6181 V961417D 6182 V961418 6183-6186 V961418A 6187 V961418B 6188 V961418C 6189 V961418D 6190 V961419 6191 V961420 6192-6195 V961421 6196-6199 V961421A 6200 V961421B 6201 V961421C 6202 V961421D 6203 V961422 6204-6207 V961422A 6208 V961422B 6209 V961422C 6210 V961422D 6211 V961423 6212-6215 V961423A 6216 V961423B 6217 V961423C 6218 V961423D 6219 V961424 6220 V961425 6221-6224 V961426 6225-6228 V961426A 6229 V961426B 6230 V961426C 6231 V961426D 6232 V961427 6233-6236 V961427A 6237 V961427B 6238 V961427C 6239 V961427D 6240 V961428 6241-6244 V961428A 6245 V961428B 6246 V961428C 6247 V961428D 6248 V961429 6249 V961430 6250-6253 V961431 6254-6257 V961431A 6258 V961431B 6259 V961431C 6260 V961431D 6261 V961432 6262-6265 V961432A 6266 V961432B 6267 V961432C 6268 V961432D 6269 V961433 6270-6273 V961433A 6274 V961433B 6275 V961433C 6276 V961433D 6277 V961434 6278 V961435 6279-6282 V961436 6283-6286 V961436A 6287 V961436B 6288 V961436C 6289 V961436D 6290 V961437 6291-6294 V961437A 6295 V961437B 6296 V961437C 6297 V961437D 6298 V961438 6299-6302 V961438A 6303 V961438B 6304 V961438C 6305 V961438D 6306 V961439 6307 V961440 6308-6311 V961441 6312-6315 V961441A 6316 V961441B 6317 V961441C 6318 V961441D 6319 V961442 6320-6323 V961442A 6324 V961442B 6325 V961442C 6326 V961442D 6327 V961443 6328-6331 V961443A 6332 V961443B 6333 V961443C 6334 V961443D 6335 V961444 6336 V961445 6337-6340 V961446 6341-6344 V961446A 6345 V961446B 6346 V961446C 6347 V961446D 6348 V961447 6349-6352 V961447A 6353 V961447B 6354 V961447C 6355 V961447D 6356 V961448 6357-6360 V961448A 6361 V961448B 6362 V961448C 6363 V961448D 6364 V961449 6365 V961450 6366-6369 V961451 6370-6373 V961451A 6374 V961451B 6375 V961451C 6376 V961451D 6377 V961452 6378-6381 V961452A 6382 V961452B 6383 V961452C 6384 V961452D 6385 V961453 6386-6389 V961453A 6390 V961453B 6391 V961453C 6392 V961453D 6393 ............................................... GROUP-SPECIFIC MISSING DATA ************************************************************ ************************************************************ FOR PAYMENT OF DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS: the group-specific data may be found in the columns below. For each group category, the first variable corresponds to the response for Group1 mention, the second variable corresponds to the response for Group2 mention, etc. LABOR UNIONS DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961346a =0 then v961346a =.; if v961346b =0 then v961346b =.; if v961346c =0 then v961346c =.; if v961346d =0 then v961346d =.; v961346a (0) v961346b (0) v961346c (0) v961346d (0) BUSINESS OR WORK-RELATED DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961351a =0 then v961351a =.; if v961351b =0 then v961351b =.; if v961351c =0 then v961351c =.; if v961351d =0 then v961351d =.; v961351a (0) v961351b (0) v961351c (0) v961351d (0) VETERANS DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961356a =0 then v961356a =.; if v961356b =0 then v961356b =.; if v961356c =0 then v961356c =.; if v961356d =0 then v961356d =.; v961356a (0) v961356b (0) v961356c (0) v961356d (0) CHURCH/SYNAGOGUE DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961361a =0 then v961361a =.; if v961361b =0 then v961361b =.; if v961361c =0 then v961361c =.; if v961361d =0 then v961361d =.; v961361a (0) v961361b (0) v961361c (0) v961361d (0) OTHER RELIGIOUS DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961366a =0 then v961366a =.; if v961366b =0 then v961366b =.; if v961366c =0 then v961366c =.; if v961366d =0 then v961366d =.; v961366a (0) v961366b (0) v961366c (0) v961366d (0) ELDERLY/SENIOR DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961371a =0 then v961371a =.; if v961371b =0 then v961371b =.; if v961371c =0 then v961371c =.; if v961371d =0 then v961371d =.; v961371a (0) v961371b (0) v961371c (0) v961371d (0) ETHNIC/NATIONALITY DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961376a =0 then v961376a =.; if v961376b =0 then v961376b =.; if v961376c =0 then v961376c =.; if v961376d =0 then v961376d =.; v961376a (0) v961376b (0) v961376c (0) v961376d (0) WOMEN'S RIGHTS OR WELFARE DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961381a =0 then v961381a =.; if v961381b =0 then v961381b =.; if v961381c =0 then v961381c =.; if v961381d =0 then v961381d =.; v961381a (0) v961381b (0) v961381c (0) v961381d (0) POLITICAL ISSUE DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961386a =0 then v961386a =.; if v961386b =0 then v961386b =.; if v961386c =0 then v961386c =.; if v961386d =0 then v961386d =.; v961386a (0) v961386b (0) v961386c (0) v961386d (0) NONPARTISAN OR CIVIC DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961391a =0 then v961391a =.; if v961391b =0 then v961391b =.; if v961391c =0 then v961391c =.; if v961391d =0 then v961391d =.; v961391a (0) v961391b (0) v961391c (0) v961391d (0) LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961396a =0 then v961396a =.; if v961396b =0 then v961396b =.; if v961396c =0 then v961396c =.; if v961396d =0 then v961396d =.; v961396a (0) v961396b (0) v961396c (0) v961396d (0) POLITICAL PARTY OR CAND SUPPORT DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961401a =0 then v961401a =.; if v961401b =0 then v961401b =.; if v961401c =0 then v961401c =.; if v961401d =0 then v961401d =.; v961401a (0) v961401b (0) v961401c (0) v961401d (0) CHILDRENS' ACTIVITY DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961406a =0 then v961406a =.; if v961406b =0 then v961406b =.; if v961406c =0 then v961406c =.; if v961406d =0 then v961406d =.; v961406a (0) v961406b (0) v961406c (0) v961406d (0) LITERARY, ART OR DISCUSSION DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961411a =0 then v961411a =.; if v961411b =0 then v961411b =.; if v961411c =0 then v961411c =.; if v961411d =0 then v961411d =.; v961411a (0) v961411b (0) v961411c (0) v961411d (0) HOBBY OR LEISURE DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961416a =0 then v961416a =.; if v961416b =0 then v961416b =.; if v961416c =0 then v961416c =.; if v961416d =0 then v961416d =.; v961416a (0) v961416b (0) v961416c (0) v961416d (0) NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961421a =0 then v961421a =.; if v961421b =0 then v961421b =.; if v961421c =0 then v961421c =.; if v961421d =0 then v961421d =.; v961421a (0) v961421b (0) v961421c (0) v961421d (0) SERVICE/FRATERNAL DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961426a =0 then v961426a =.; if v961426b =0 then v961426b =.; if v961426c =0 then v961426c =.; if v961426d =0 then v961426d =.; v961426a (0) v961426b (0) v961426c (0) v961426d (0) SERVICE TO NEEDY DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961431a =0 then v961431a =.; if v961431b =0 then v961431b =.; if v961431c =0 then v961431c =.; if v961431d =0 then v961431d =.; v961431a (0) v961431b (0) v961431c (0) v961431d (0) EDUCATIONAL DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961436a =0 then v961436a =.; if v961436b =0 then v961436b =.; if v961436c =0 then v961436c =.; if v961436d =0 then v961436d =.; v961436a (0) v961436b (0) v961436c (0) v961436d (0) CULTURAL SERVICE DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961441a =0 then v961441a =.; if v961441b =0 then v961441b =.; if v961441c =0 then v961441c =.; if v961441d =0 then v961441d =.; v961441a (0) v961441b (0) v961441c (0) v961441d (0) SELF-HELP DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961446a =0 then v961446a =.; if v961446b =0 then v961446b =.; if v961446c =0 then v961446c =.; if v961446d =0 then v961446d =.; v961446a (0) v961446b (0) v961446c (0) v961446d (0) OTHER DUES/CONTRIBUTIONS if v961451a =0 then v961451a =.; if v961451b =0 then v961451b =.; if v961451c =0 then v961451c =.; if v961451d =0 then v961451d =.; v961451a (0) v961451b (0) v961451c (0) v961451d (0) ************************************************************ ************************************************************ FOR MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES: the group-specific data may be found in the columns below. For each group category, the first variable corresponds to the response for Group1 mention, the second variable corresponds to the response for Group2 mention, etc. LABOR UNIONS MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961347a =0 then v961347a =.; if v961347b =0 then v961347b =.; if v961347c =0 then v961347c =.; if v961347d =0 then v961347d =.; v961347a (0) v961347b (0) v961347c (0) v961347d (0) BUSINESS OR WORK-RELATED MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961352a =0 then v961352a =.; if v961352b =0 then v961352b =.; if v961352c =0 then v961352c =.; if v961352d =0 then v961352d =.; v961352a (0) v961352b (0) v961352c (0) v961352d (0) VETERANS MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961357a =0 then v961357a =.; if v961357b =0 then v961357b =.; if v961357c =0 then v961357c =.; if v961357d =0 then v961357d =.; v961357a (0) v961357b (0) v961357c (0) v961357d (0) CHURCH/SYNAGOGUE MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961362a =0 then v961362a =.; if v961362b =0 then v961362b =.; if v961362c =0 then v961362c =.; if v961362d =0 then v961362d =.; v961362a (0) v961362b (0) v961362c (0) v961362d (0) OTHER RELIGIOUS MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961367a =0 then v961367a =.; if v961367b =0 then v961367b =.; if v961367c =0 then v961367c =.; if v961367d =0 then v961367d =.; v961367a (0) v961367b (0) v961367c (0) v961367d (0) ELDERLY/SENIOR MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961372a =0 then v961372a =.; if v961372b =0 then v961372b =.; if v961372c =0 then v961372c =.; if v961372d =0 then v961372d =.; v961372a (0) v961372b (0) v961372c (0) v961372d (0) ETHNIC/NATIONALITY MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961377a =0 then v961377a =.; if v961377b =0 then v961377b =.; if v961377c =0 then v961377c =.; if v961377d =0 then v961377d =.; v961377a (0) v961377b (0) v961377c (0) v961377d (0) WOMEN'S RIGHTS OR WELFARE MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961382a =0 then v961382a =.; if v961382b =0 then v961382b =.; if v961382c =0 then v961382c =.; if v961382d =0 then v961382d =.; v961382a (0) v961382b (0) v961382c (0) v961382d (0) POLITICAL ISSUE MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961387a =0 then v961387a =.; if v961387b =0 then v961387b =.; if v961387c =0 then v961387c =.; if v961387d =0 then v961387d =.; v961387a (0) v961387b (0) v961387c (0) v961387d (0) NONPARTISAN OR CIVIC MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961392a =0 then v961392a =.; if v961392b =0 then v961392b =.; if v961392c =0 then v961392c =.; if v961392d =0 then v961392d =.; v961392a (0) v961392b (0) v961392c (0) v961392d (0) LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961397a =0 then v961397a =.; if v961397b =0 then v961397b =.; if v961397c =0 then v961397c =.; if v961397d =0 then v961397d =.; v961397a (0) v961397b (0) v961397c (0) v961397d (0) POLITICAL PARTY OR CAND SUPPORT MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961402a =0 then v961402a =.; if v961402b =0 then v961402b =.; if v961402c =0 then v961402c =.; if v961402d =0 then v961402d =.; v961402a (0) v961402b (0) v961402c (0) v961402d (0) CHILDRENS' ACTIVITY MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961407a =0 then v961407a =.; if v961407b =0 then v961407b =.; if v961407c =0 then v961407c =.; if v961407d =0 then v961407d =.; v961407a (0) v961407b (0) v961407c (0) v961407d (0) LITERARY, ART OR DISCUSSION MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961412a =0 then v961412a =.; if v961412b =0 then v961412b =.; if v961412c =0 then v961412c =.; if v961412d =0 then v961412d =.; v961412a (0) v961412b (0) v961412c (0) v961412d (0) HOBBY OR LEISURE MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961417a =0 then v961417a =.; if v961417b =0 then v961417b =.; if v961417c =0 then v961417c =.; if v961417d =0 then v961417d =.; v961417a (0) v961417b (0) v961417c (0) v961417d (0) NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961422a =0 then v961422a =.; if v961422b =0 then v961422b =.; if v961422c =0 then v961422c =.; if v961422d =0 then v961422d =.; v961422a (0) v961422b (0) v961422c (0) v961422d (0) SERVICE/FRATERNAL MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961427a =0 then v961427a =.; if v961427b =0 then v961427b =.; if v961427c =0 then v961427c =.; if v961427d =0 then v961427d =.; v961427a (0) v961427b (0) v961427c (0) v961427d (0) SERVICE TO NEEDY MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961432a =0 then v961432a =.; if v961432b =0 then v961432b =.; if v961432c =0 then v961432c =.; if v961432d =0 then v961432d =.; v961432a (0) v961432b (0) v961432c (0) v961432d (0) EDUCATIONAL MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961437a =0 then v961437a =.; if v961437b =0 then v961437b =.; if v961437c =0 then v961437c =.; if v961437d =0 then v961437d =.; v961437a (0) v961437b (0) v961437c (0) v961437d (0) CULTURAL SERVICE MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961442a =0 then v961442a =.; if v961442b =0 then v961442b =.; if v961442c =0 then v961442c =.; if v961442d =0 then v961442d =.; v961442a (0) v961442b (0) v961442c (0) v961442d (0) SELF-HELP MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961447a =0 then v961447a =.; if v961447b =0 then v961447b =.; if v961447c =0 then v961447c =.; if v961447d =0 then v961447d =.; v961447a (0) v961447b (0) v961447c (0) v961447d (0) OTHER MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES if v961452a =0 then v961452a =.; if v961452b =0 then v961452b =.; if v961452c =0 then v961452c =.; if v961452d =0 then v961452d =.; v961452a (0) v961452b (0) v961452c (0) v961452d (0) ************************************************************ ************************************************************ FOR POLITICAL DISCUSSION: the group-specific data may be found in the columns below. For each group category, the first variable corresponds to the response for Group1 mention, the second variable corresponds to the response for Group2 mention, etc. LABOR UNIONS POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961348a =0 then v961348a =.; if v961348b =0 then v961348b =.; if v961348c =0 then v961348c =.; if v961348d =0 then v961348d =.; v961348a (0) v961348b (0) v961348c (0) v961348d (0) BUSINESS OR WORK-RELATED POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961353a =0 then v961353a =.; if v961353b =0 then v961353b =.; if v961353c =0 then v961353c =.; if v961353d =0 then v961353d =.; v961353a (0) v961353b (0) v961353c (0) v961353d (0) VETERANS POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961358a =0 then v961358a =.; if v961358b =0 then v961358b =.; if v961358c =0 then v961358c =.; if v961358d =0 then v961358d =.; v961358a (0) v961358b (0) v961358c (0) v961358d (0) CHURCH/SYNAGOGUE POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961363a =0 then v961363a =.; if v961363b =0 then v961363b =.; if v961363c =0 then v961363c =.; if v961363d =0 then v961363d =.; v961363a (0) v961363b (0) v961363c (0) v961363d (0) OTHER RELIGIOUS POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961368a =0 then v961368a =.; if v961368b =0 then v961368b =.; if v961368c =0 then v961368c =.; if v961368d =0 then v961368d =.; v961368a (0) v961368b (0) v961368c (0) v961368d (0) ELDERLY/SENIOR POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961373a =0 then v961373a =.; if v961373b =0 then v961373b =.; if v961373c =0 then v961373c =.; if v961373d =0 then v961373d =.; v961373a (0) v961373b (0) v961373c (0) v961373d (0) ETHNIC/NATIONALITY POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961378a =0 then v961378a =.; if v961378b =0 then v961378b =.; if v961378c =0 then v961378c =.; if v961378d =0 then v961378d =.; v961378a (0) v961378b (0) v961378c (0) v961378d (0) WOMEN'S RIGHTS OR WELFARE POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961383a =0 then v961383a =.; if v961383b =0 then v961383b =.; if v961383c =0 then v961383c =.; if v961383d =0 then v961383d =.; v961383a (0) v961383b (0) v961383c (0) v961383d (0) POLITICAL ISSUE POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961388a =0 then v961388a =.; if v961388b =0 then v961388b =.; if v961388c =0 then v961388c =.; if v961388d =0 then v961388d =.; v961388a (0) v961388b (0) v961388c (0) v961388d (0) NONPARTISAN OR CIV96IC if v961393a =0 then v961393a =.; if v961393b =0 then v961393b =.; if v961393c =0 then v961393c =.; if v961393d =0 then v961393d =.; v961393a (0) v961393b (0) v961393c (0) v961393d (0) LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961398a =0 then v961398a =.; if v961398b =0 then v961398b =.; if v961398c =0 then v961398c =.; if v961398d =0 then v961398d =.; v961398a (0) v961398b (0) v961398c (0) v961398d (0) POLITICAL PARTY OR CAND SUPPORT POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961403a =0 then v961403a =.; if v961403b =0 then v961403b =.; if v961403c =0 then v961403c =.; if v961403d =0 then v961403d =.; v961403a (0) v961403b (0) v961403c (0) v961403d (0) CHILDRENS' ACTIVITY POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961408a =0 then v961408a =.; if v961408b =0 then v961408b =.; if v961408c =0 then v961408c =.; if v961408d =0 then v961408d =.; v961408a (0) v961408b (0) v961408c (0) v961408d (0) LITERARY, ART OR DISCUSSION POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961413a =0 then v961413a =.; if v961413b =0 then v961413b =.; if v961413c =0 then v961413c =.; if v961413d =0 then v961413d =.; v961413a (0) v961413b (0) v961413c (0) v961413d (0) HOBBY OR LEISURE POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961418a =0 then v961418a =.; if v961418b =0 then v961418b =.; if v961418c =0 then v961418c =.; if v961418d =0 then v961418d =.; v961418a (0) v961418b (0) v961418c (0) v961418d (0) NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961423a =0 then v961423a =.; if v961423b =0 then v961423b =.; if v961423c =0 then v961423c =.; if v961423d =0 then v961423d =.; v961423a (0) v961423b (0) v961423c (0) v961423d (0) SERVICE/FRATERNAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961428a =0 then v961428a =.; if v961428b =0 then v961428b =.; if v961428c =0 then v961428c =.; if v961428d =0 then v961428d =.; v961428a (0) v961428b (0) v961428c (0) v961428d (0) SERVICE TO NEEDY POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961433a =0 then v961433a =.; if v961433b =0 then v961433b =.; if v961433c =0 then v961433c =.; if v961433d =0 then v961433d =.; v961433a (0) v961433b (0) v961433c (0) v961433d (0) EDUCATIONAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961438a =0 then v961438a =.; if v961438b =0 then v961438b =.; if v961438c =0 then v961438c =.; if v961438d =0 then v961438d =.; v961438a (0) v961438b (0) v961438c (0) v961438d (0) CULTURAL SERVICE POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961433a =0 then v961433a =.; if v961433b =0 then v961433b =.; if v961433c =0 then v961433c =.; if v961433d =0 then v961433d =.; v961443a (0) v961443b (0) v961443c (0) v961443d (0) SELF-HELP POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961448a =0 then v961448a =.; if v961448b =0 then v961448b =.; if v961448c =0 then v961448c =.; if v961448d =0 then v961448d =.; v961448a (0) v961448b (0) v961448c (0) v961448d (0) OTHER POLITICAL DISCUSSION if v961453a =0 then v961453a =.; if v961453b =0 then v961453b =.; if v961453c =0 then v961453c =.; if v961453d =0 then v961453d =.; v961453a (0) v961453b (0) v961453c (0) v961453d (0) >> POST-STRATIFIED CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS WEIGHTS FOR THE 1992, 1994 AND 1996 NES DATA Prepared by the Sampling Section Division of Surveys and Technologies Survey Research Center Institute for Social Research University of Michigan 1. Overview: Why is NES issuing new weight variables? A new set of weights has been constructed for use with the series of National Election Studies beginning with the 1992 Pre-Election Study. This series includes the 1992 Pre and Post, the 1994 Post, and the 1996 Pre and Post Election Studies. The main difference between these and the previously released weights is found in the post-stratification criteria. The new weights post-stratify the National Election Study data to match the Current Population Study (CPS) estimate of the distribution of age group by education level. The previous set of weights adjusted the NES sample to the CPS distribution for Census Region, sex, and age group. These new weights correct for an under-representation of younger and less educated respondents in each year's sample of respondents mainly due to attrition of these categories of respondents in the panel component. The previous set of analysis weights developed for the 1996 NES public use data sets led to overestimation of reported voter turnout in the 1996 presidential election. A comparison between the 1992 and the 1996 presidential vote turnout estimates from the NES samples does not to reflect the trend of declining participation that has been evident from external sources, such as the Current Population Survey turnout estimates. Several sources of bias caused of this problem, leading to under-representation of 18-22 year olds in the 1996 NES sample, respondents with no high school diploma, or both. The significance of this under-representation becomes clear when the rates of voting participation by age and education subgroups are examined. The results are summarized in Tables 1a and 1b, below. Table 1a clearly demonstrates the well-known strong relationship between education and voting: people with less education are less likely to vote. Table 1b shows that reported voter turnout is higher among older people. Since the age and education groups with the lowest voting rates are underrepresented, estimates of 1996 presidential election participation are skewed in the direction of higher rates of turnout. Table 1a: Reported turnout in the 1996 presidential election by education level of respondent (source: 1996 NES). Education % reporting having voted No HS diploma 57.1 High school diploma 69.1 Some college 80.7 College Graduate 89.9 Total 76.6 Table 1b: Reported turnout in the 1996 presidential election by age group of the respondent (source: 1996 NES). Age % reporting having voted 18-21 54.6 22-29 59.2 30-39 73.3 40-49 80.7 50-59 81.0 60-69 81.8 70+ 84.5 Total 76.6 The following three sections describe the three major factors which contribute to the under-representation of specific age or education groups. These include "initial contact non-response bias," "coverage bias resulting from longitudinal sample design" and "education related attrition bias." Subsequent sections describe in detail the procedures used in the construction of the new weights. 2. Initial Contact Nonresponse Bias The first important source of age and education related bias is nonresponse bias at the initial interview. Initial contact nonresponse bias occurs when people with a certain characteristic in common have a significantly different response rate from the overall response rate. For example, if women are found to have a much higher response rate than the combined response rate for men and women, then there is an initial contact nonresponse bias based on gender. If there were no nonresponse bias based on age or education we would expect the NES cross-section samples to have age by education distributions similar to that of the Current Population Survey (CPS) population estimates. There would be minor differences attributable to sampling error, but we would not expect to find large or systematic differences. Table 2, which compares the weighted distributions of education for the 1992, 1994 and 1996 NES cross-section samples to CPS population estimates for the same years suggests that systematic differences are present. The weight used in Table 2 is the calculated base weight. This weight is the product of a person-level selection weight and a household-level nonresponse adjustment factor. Since the selection probability of an eligible adult is inversely proportional to the number of eligible adults in the household it is important to use the selection weight based on the number of eligible adults in the household when comparing NES person-level statistics to CPS person-level distributions. The base weight also adjusts for the difference in response rates by region and by urbanicity. The construction of these weight factors is described in Sections 5 through 8. This part of the NES weight is essentially the same for the old and new weights. In Table 2, CPS estimates for 1992, 1994 and 1996 are included in the shaded columns. Comparisons of the weighted cross-section data from 1992, 1994 and 1996 to the corresponding CPS estimates reveal clear systematic differences which cannot be wholly attributed to sampling error. In all three cross-section groups there is a strong relationship between the level of education achieved by the respondent and the nonresponse rate. Specifically, people with less education -- especially people without a high school diploma - tend to be underrepresented in the weighted cross-section samples. Table 2: Summary of weighted cross-section distributions by education 1992 CPS 1992 pre 1994 CPS 1994 post 1996 CPS 1996 pre propor- (weighted) propor- (weighted) propor- (weighted) tion tion tion No HS Diploma 0.208 0.144 0.195 0.161 0.189 0.103 HS Diploma 0.355 0.321 0.339 0.356 0.332 0.338 Some College 0.243 0.270 0.264 0.258 0.264 0.323 College Graduate 0.195 0.265 0.203 0.226 0.215 0.236 3. Coverage Bias Resulting from Longitudinal Sample Design The longitudinal design of the National Election Study results in a coverage bias in the 1992 and 1994 cross-section component of the 1996 sample. Respondents age 18-19 had no chance of being observed in the panel. Respondents age 20 or 21 years old had a chance of inclusion in only the 1994 cross-section component of the 1996 panel. This structural bias in cross-sectional estimates based on the combined 1996 NES sample is an additional contributor to under-representation of the younger population. The age 18-21 bias in the sample also affects education since the youngest group (e.g., 18-22) has a natural constraint on the level of education that a respondent could have achieved by the time he or she was interviewed. 4. Education Related Attrition Bias Differential reinterview rates (pre to post as well as across election year waves) based on education also contribute to over- estimation of voting in the 1996 presidential election. The relationship between education and cumulative attrition is shown in Tables 3a-3c. Table 3a tracks the 1992 cross-section cases across subsequent interviews. The age groups listed in the left-most column refer to the respondent's age at the initial interview. Thus, a 29 year old respondent in 1992 would not move into the next higher age group in 1994. Columns labeled "%" indicate the percent of the original sample that was reinterviewed. For example, in Table 3a, under 1996 (pre), there is a column labeled "n" and a column labeled "%". The value in the top row in the "%" column is 71.4%. This means that 71.4 percent of the seven 18-21 year olds with no HS diploma were included in the panel component of the 1996 pre election interview. Sample Tables 3b and 3c show the attrition for the 1994 and 1996 cross-section components. The summaries of cumulative attrition by education group portray a strong relationship between education and reinterview rate. Respondents with more education are more likely to participate in subsequent interviews. This difference in attrition rate is found between pre and post interviews of the same year (Table 3a - 1992 Post, Table 3c - 1996 Post) as well as across interview years (Table 3b - 1996 Pre). Initially biased samples are subjected to further nonresponse bias at every subsequent interview, causing significant under-representation of less educated, eligible voters. Since eligible adults with low education are less likely to vote and are under-represented in the sample, predictions of voting participation will be biased upward. Table 3a: Cumulative attrition for the 1992 NES Cross-section sample 1992 1994 1996 (pre) (post) (post) (pre) (post) AGE HIGHEST (in EDUCATION n n % n % n % n % 1992) 18-21 No HS Diploma 7 7 100.0 7 100.0 5 71.4 3 42.9 HS Diploma 30 27 90.0 18 60.0 11 36.7 6 20.0 Some College 24 23 95.8 18 75.0 15 62.5 14 58.3 College Graduate 1 1 100.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0 TOTAL 62 58 93.5 44 71.0 31 50.0 23 37.1 22-29 No HS Diploma 15 15 100.0 8 53.3 6 40.0 6 40.0 HS Diploma 53 47 88.7 29 54.7 17 32.1 15 28.3 Some College 63 56 88.9 44 69.8 38 60.3 34 54.0 College Graduate 42 38 90.5 29 69.0 26 61.9 23 54.8 TOTAL 173 156 90.2 110 63.6 87 50.3 78 45.1 30-39 No HS Diploma 23 22 95.7 16 69.6 11 47.8 11 47.8 HS Diploma 89 78 87.6 56 62.9 44 49.4 41 46.1 Some College 93 86 92.5 72 77.4 54 58.1 49 52.7 College Graduate 107 103 96.3 78 72.9 62 57.9 58 54.2 TOTAL 312 289 92.6 222 71.2 171 54.8 159 51.0 40-49 No HS Diploma 13 13 100.0 9 69.2 6 46.2 5 38.5 HS Diploma 52 48 92.3 35 67.3 28 53.8 24 46.2 Some College 48 40 83.3 27 56.3 21 43.8 20 41.7 College Graduate 70 62 88.6 50 71.4 41 58.6 38 54.3 TOTAL 183 163 89.1 121 66.1 96 52.5 87 47.5 50-59 No HS Diploma 27 24 88.9 17 63.0 15 55.6 14 51.9 HS Diploma 43 40 93.0 33 76.7 26 60.5 22 51.2 Some College 28 25 89.3 18 64.3 14 50.0 14 50.0 College Graduate 45 39 86.7 33 73.3 30 66.7 29 64.2 TOTAL 143 128 89.5 101 70.6 85 59.4 79 55.2 60-69 No HS Diploma 37 30 81.1 23 62.2 17 45.9 16 43.2 HS Diploma 50 39 78.0 30 60.0 24 48.0 24 48.0 Some College 19 14 73.7 10 52.6 9 47.4 9 47.4 College Graduate 16 16 100.0 13 81.3 12 75.0 11 68.8 TOTAL 122 99 81.1 76 62.3 62 50.8 60 49.2 70+ No HS Diploma 54 42 77.8 28 51.9 22 40.7 21 38.9 HS Diploma 31 30 96.8 22 71.0 15 48.4 14 45.2 Some College 27 24 88.9 20 74.1 16 59.3 14 51.9 College Graduate 19 16 84.2 15 78.9 12 63.2 10 52.6 TOTAL 131 112 85.5 85 64.9 65 49.6 59 45.0 1126 1005 759 597 545 Summary by Education level: 1992 pre 1992 post 1994 post 1996 pre 1996 post n n % n % n % n % No HS Diploma 176 153 86.9 108 61.4 82 46.6 76 43.2 HS Diploma 348 309 88.8 223 64.1 165 47.4 146 42.0 Some College 302 268 88.7 209 69.2 167 55.3 154 51.0 College graduate 300 275 91.7 219 73.0 183 61.0 169 56.3 Total 1126 1005 89.3 759 67.4 597 53.0 545 48.4 Table 3b: Cumulative attrition for the 1994 NES Cross-section sample 1994 1996 (post) (pre) (post) AGE HIGHEST n n % n % (at EDUCATION 1994) 18-21 No HS Diploma 13 8 61.5 4 30.8 HS Diploma 24 13 54.2 9 37.5 Some College 18 10 55.6 7 38.9 College Graduate 0 0 0 TOTAL 55 31 56.4 20 36.4 22-29 No HS Diploma 14 6 42.9 4 28.6 HS Diploma 45 31 68.9 26 57.8 Some College 58 37 63.8 33 56.9 College Graduate 35 24 68.6 22 62.9 TOTAL 152 98 64.5 85 55.9 30-39 No HS Diploma 21 16 76.2 13 61.9 HS Diploma 93 59 63.4 53 57.0 Some College 73 45 61.6 40 54.8 College Graduate 59 44 74.6 40 67.8 TOTAL 246 164 66.7 146 59.3 40-49 No HS Diploma 14 10 71.4 8 57.1 HS Diploma 53 39 73.6 37 69.8 Some College 52 40 76.9 37 71.2 College Graduate 67 54 80.6 51 76.4 TOTAL 186 143 76.9 133 71.5 50-59 No HS Diploma 16 11 68.8 10 62.5 HS Diploma 43 33 76.7 27 62.8 Some College 24 19 79.2 19 79.2 College Graduate 29 21 72.4 21 72.4 TOTAL 112 84 75.0 77 68.8 60-69 No HS Diploma 42 30 71.4 28 66.7 HS Diploma 62 42 67.7 40 64.5 Some College 21 16 76.2 15 71.4 College Graduate 19 17 89.5 17 89.5 TOTAL 144 105 72.9 100 69.4 70+ No HS Diploma 51 32 62.7 31 60.8 HS Diploma 42 30 71.4 29 69.0 Some College 22 12 54.5 11 50.0 College Graduate 26 20 76.9 20 76.9 TOTAL 141 94 66.7 91 64.5 1036 719 652 Summary by Education level: 1994 post 1996 pre 1996 post n n % n % No HS Diploma 171 113 66.1 98 57.3 HS Diploma 362 247 68.2 221 61.0 Some College 268 179 66.8 162 60.4 College Graduate 235 180 76.6 171 72.8 Total 1036 719 69.4 652 62.9 Table 3c: Cumulative attrition for the 1996 NES Cross-section sample 1996 (pre) (post) AGE HIGHEST (at EDUCATION n n % 1996) 18-21 No HS Diploma 3 2 66.7 HS Diploma 9 7 77.8 Some College 23 21 91.3 College Graduate 0 0 TOTAL 35 30 85.7 22-29 No HS Diploma 4 2 50.0 HS Diploma 19 13 72.2 Some College 13 10 76.9 College Graduate 17 16 94.1 TOTAL 52 41 78.8 30-39 No HS Diploma 4 4 100.0 HS Diploma 36 29 80.6 Some College 31 29 93.5 College Graduate 28 23 82.1 TOTAL 99 85 85.9 40-49 No HS Diploma 5 4 80.0 HS Diploma 23 18 78.3 Some College 25 20 80.0 College Graduate 22 19 86.4 TOTAL 75 61 81.3 50-59 No HS Diploma 7 6 85.7 HS Diploma 17 15 88.2 Some College 17 15 88.2 College Graduate 15 15 100.0 TOTAL 56 51 91.1 60-69 No HS Diploma 9 9 100.0 HS Diploma 12 11 91.7 Some College 9 7 77.8 College Graduate 7 6 85.7 TOTAL 37 33 89.2 70+ No HS Diploma 13 10 76.9 HS Diploma 22 18 81.8 Some College 6 5 83.3 College Graduate 3 3 100.0 TOTAL 44 36 81.8 398 337 Summary by Education level: 1996 pre 1996 post n n % No HS Diploma 45 37 82.2 HS Diploma 137 111 81.0 Some College 124 107 86.3 College Graduate 92 82 89.1 Total 398 337 84.7 5. Construction of the new weights The revised NES final analysis weight is based on the product of a calculated base weight and a post-stratification factor. The base weight is constructed to adjust for selection probability and geographic differences in response rates at the time of the initial interview with each sample component. This weight is the product of a selection probability weight and the household nonresponse factor. The base weights for 1992, 1994, and 1996 cross-section cases are initially determined using the corresponding year's household nonresponse factor. Panel cases use this same base weight, carried over from the original interview. Since differences in selection probabilities for the NES sample household are due only to random selection of a single adult from households of various sizes, the selection probability weight is the number of eligible people in the household (up to three). The post-stratification factor is the ratio of the census proportion for each age by education subgroup, to the corresponding weighted ( base weight ) sample proportion. Multiplication of the base weight by this post-stratification factor adjusts the weighted sample distribution to conform to the CPS population estimates. The following sections describe the base weight and post-stratification factors in further detail. Final Weight = base weight x post-stratification factor where: Base weight = selection weight x household nonresponse factor and: Selection weight = the number of eligible adults in household (up to three) 6. Construction of a Base Weight The base weight is the product of two factors: the selection weight and the household nonresponse adjustment factor. Although the National Election Study uses an area probability sample design to achieve an equal probability sample of U.S. households, the NES design does not produce an equal probability sample of persons. Since only one person is chosen from each selected household, any particular individual's probability of selection is inversely proportional to the number of eligible adults in the household. The selection weight which is equal to the number of eligible persons in the household (inverse of the selection probability) adjusts for the under-representation of persons in larger households. The household nonresponse factor is used to adjust for the differential nonresponse rates found in different regions and PSU types (Self-representing MSA, Nonself-representing MSA, and non-MSA. Self-representing MSAs are the largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the nation and are therefore self-representing in the 1990 SRC National Sample; Nonself-representing MSAs are medium and smaller sized MSAs, and the non-MSAs are counties which are not designated as MSAs and are less urban. 7. Selection Probability Weight: The National Election Study uses an area probability sample design to achieve an equal probability sample of U.S. households. If a household has only one eligible adult, that person is included in the sample. If a selected household has more than one eligible adult, one is selected at random. Since the number of eligible adults varies across households, the probability of selection for individuals is unequal and a weight which is the reciprocal of the probability of selection should be used. In the interest of limiting the variation of the weights, respondents selected from households with more than three eligible adults were assigned a weight of three; otherwise the selection weight is equal to the number of eligible adults. 8. Household Nonresponse Adjustment Factor: Nonresponse bias is a potential source of nonsampling error in the NES data. It has been found that response rates vary significantly by geographic region and PSU type (MSA/non-MSA status). In an effort to counteract this potential source of bias, adjustment factors have been constructed at the household level to account for the geographic and urban/rural differences in response rates. Table 4 shows the initial contact response rates in the 1992, 1994 and 1996 NES by PSU type and region. The nonresponse adjustment factor was determined by dividing the cross-section cases among twelve cells of four regions (Northeast / Midwest / South /West) by three PSU types (SR MSA, NSR MSA, NSR Non- MSA). The cases in each cell share a nonresponse adjustment factor calculated as the inverse of the response rate of the cell. These response rates are for the initial cross-section components only. They do not include the panel cases. Table 4: Initial contact response rates by PSU type and region 1992 Response 1994 Response 1996 Response PSU Type Region rate rate rate SR MSA Northeast 0.683 0.570 0.423 Midwest 0.759 0.651 0.533 South 0.724 0.620 0.539 West 0.471 0.517 0.507 NSR MSA Northeast 0.741 0.577 0.526 Midwest 0.699 0.717 0.678 South 0.727 0.813 0.646 West 0.723 0.782 0.625 NSR Non-MSA Northeast 0.820 0.725 0.600 Midwest 0.917 0.878 0.721 South 0.830 0.736 0.687 West 0.762 0.946 0.810 9. Comparison of Weighted NES and CPS Age Group by Education Level Distributions Table 5a below shows the current interview age by education distributions of 1992 cross-section cases in initial and subsequent interviews. The table includes weighted (base weight) percentages and unweighted percentages with estimates of the population percentages according to the Current Population Study included for comparison. We can see for example, that in the 1992 NES pre election sample there were 15 respondents age 22-29 with no high school diploma. These represent approximately 1.3 percent of the 1126 total respondents in this sample. When the base weight is used, the weighted percent for this group increases to about 1.6 percent. The 1992 CPS population estimates are listed in a column on the left. It is estimated that in 1992 about 2.4 percent of all eligible adults were 22-29 year-olds with no high school diploma. The shaded rows indicate totals by age group and a summary by education is provided at the bottom of the page. Table 5b gives the same information for the 1994 cross-section cases and Table 5c shows the 1996 cross-section distributions. Table 5a: Distribution of the 1992 NES Cross-section sample by current age and education AGE HIGHEST 1992 Unwtd Wghted Unwtd Wghted (Cur- EDUCATION CPS n & % n % % rent ) (Sel,NR) (Sel,NR) 18-21 No College 4.3 37 3.3 4.6 34 3.4 4.7 College 3.1 25 2.2 2.3 24 2.4 2.6 TOTAL 7.3 62 5.5 7.0 58 5.8 7.3 22-29 No HS Diploma 2.4 15 1.3 1.6 15 1.5 1.8 HS Diploma 6.1 53 4.7 4.5 47 4.7 4.6 Some College 4.8 63 5.6 5.6 56 5.6 5.6 College Graduate 3.5 42 3.7 3.7 38 3.8 3.8 TOTAL 16.7 173 15.4 15.4 156 15.5 15.8 30-39 No HS Diploma 3.0 23 2.0 1.6 22 2.2 1.7 HS Diploma 8.7 89 7.9 8.0 78 7.8 7.8 Some College 6.1 93 8.3 8.0 86 8.6 8.3 College Graduate 5.7 107 9.5 9.2 103 10.2 10.0 TOTAL 23.4 312 27.7 26.8 289 28.8 27.8 40-49 No HS Diploma 2.4 13 1.2 1.2 13 1.3 1.3 HS Diploma 6.1 52 4.6 5.1 48 4.8 5.2 Some College 4.7 48 4.3 4.7 40 4.0 4.2 College Graduate 5.0 70 6.2 6.3 62 6.2 6.2 TOTAL 18.1 183 16.3 17.2 163 16.2 16.9 50-59 No HS Diploma 2.8 27 2.4 2.5 24 2.4 2.4 HS Diploma 4.7 43 3.8 4.6 40 4.0 4.8 Some College 2.4 28 2.5 2.4 25 2.5 2.5 College Graduate 2.5 45 4.0 4.2 39 3.9 4.1 TOTAL 12.3 143 12.7 13.7 128 12.7 13.7 60-69 No HS Diploma 3.5 37 3.3 3.0 30 3.0 2.7 HS Diploma 4.2 50 4.4 4.0 39 3.9 3.5 Some College 1.8 19 1.7 1.8 14 1.4 1.4 College Graduate 1.7 16 1.4 1.5 16 1.6 1.7 TOTAL 11.1 122 10.8 10.2 99 9.9 9.3 70+ No HS Diploma 4.8 54 4.8 3.8 42 4.2 3.1 HS Diploma 3.6 31 2.8 2.2 30 3.0 2.4 Some College 1.5 27 2.4 2.3 24 2.4 2.2 College Graduate 1.2 19 1.7 1.5 16 1.6 1.5 TOTAL 11.1 131 11.6 9.8 112 11.1 9.2 1126 1005 by Education Summary level: 1992 pre 1992 post 92 CPS n Unwtd % Wtd % n Unwtd % Wtd % No HS Diploma 20.8 176 15.6 14.4 153 15.2 13.9 HS Diploma 35.5 348 30.9 32.1 309 30.7 32.1 Some College 24.3 302 26.8 27.0 268 26.7 26.7 College Graduate 19.5 300 26.6 26.5 275 27.4 27.4 Total 1126 1005 Table 5a: (cont.): Distribution of the 1992 NES Cross-section sample by current age and education 1994 post 1996 pre 1996 post AGE HIGHEST 1992 Unwtd Wghtd Unwtd Wghtd Unwtd Wghtd (Cur- EDUCATION CPS n % % n % % n % % rent) (Sel,NR) (Sel,NR) (Sel,NR) 18-21 No College 4.3 13 1.7 2.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 College 3.1 4 0.5 0.7 1 0.2 0.3 1 0.2 0.3 TOTAL 7.3 17 2.2 3.2 1 6.2 0.3 1 0.2 0.3 22-29 No HS Diploma 2.4 9 1.2 1.1 4 0.7 0.8 3 0.6 0.7 HS Dip- loma 6.1 27 3.6 4.2 20 3.4 4.1 15 2.8 3.2 Some College 4.8 46 6.1 6.1 21 3.5 3.8 18 3.3 3.6 College Graduate 3.5 16 2.1 2.1 22 3.7 4.0 20 3.7 4.0 TOTAL 16.7 98 12.9 13.5 67 11.2 12.7 56 10.3 11.5 30-39 No HS Diploma 3.0 16 2.1 1.7 10 1.7 1.6 10 1.8 1.7 HS Dip- loma 8.7 54 7.1 7.2 40 6.7 6.3 37 6.8 6.5 Some College 6.1 77 10.1 9.7 54 9.0 8.7 47 8.6 8.2 College Graduate 5.7 74 9.8 9.6 54 9.0 9.3 50 9.2 9.4 TOTAL 23.4 221 29.1 28.2 158 26.5 25.9 144 26.4 25.8 40-49 No HS Diploma 2.4 11 1.4 1.3 6 1.0 0.7 5 0.9 0.6 HS Dip- loma 6.1 39 5.1 5.7 40 6.7 7.3 35 6.4 7.1 Some College 4.7 26 3.4 3.5 20 3.4 3.8 20 3.7 4.2 College Graduate 5.0 63 8.3 8.1 59 9.9 9.4 53 9.7 9.3 TOTAL 18.1 139 18.3 18.6 125 20.9 21.2 113 20.7 21.2 50-59 No HS Diploma 2.8 13 1.7 1.8 10 1.7 1.9 10 1.8 2.1 HS Dip- loma 4.7 35 4.6 5.1 29 4.9 5.3 24 4.4 4.6 Some College 2.4 23 3.0 3.2 22 3.7 4.0 22 4.0 4.3 College Graduate 2.5 32 4.2 4.7 28 4.7 4.8 27 5.0 5.1 TOTAL 12.3 103 13.6 14.8 89 14.9 15.9 83 15.2 16.1 60-69 No HS Diploma 3.5 21 2.8 2.8 13 2.2 2.1 12 2.2 2.2 HS Dip- loma 4.2 28 3.7 3.6 22 3.7 3.6 22 4.0 3.9 Some College 1.8 10 1.3 1.2 10 1.7 1.6 10 1.8 1.8 College Graduate 1.7 15 2.0 1.8 18 3.0 2.9 17 3.1 3.1 TOTAL 11.1 74 9.7 9.3 63 10.6 10.2 61 11.2 10.9 70+ No HS Diploma 4.8 35 4.6 3.5 32 5.4 4.2 30 5.5 4.3 HS Dip- loma 3.6 30 4.0 3.4 25 4.2 3.6 23 4.2 3.7 Some College 1.5 23 3.0 2.9 21 3.5 3.2 19 3.5 3.2 College Graduate 1.2 19 2.5 2.6 16 2.7 2.8 15 2.8 2.8 TOTAL 11.1 107 14.1 12.4 94 15.7 13.8 87 16.0 14.1 759 597 545 Summary by Education level: 1994 post 1996 pre 1996 post 92 CPS n unwtd % wtd % n unwtd % wtd % n unwtd % wtd % No HS Diploma 20.8 108 14.2 12.7 75 12.6 11.2 70 12.8 11.6 HS Diploma 35.5 223 29.4 31.1 176 29.5 30.1 156 28.6 29.1 Some College 24.3 209 27.5 27.2 149 25.0 25.4 137 25.1 25.6 College Graduate 19.5 219 28.8 29.0 197 33.0 33.2 182 33.4 33.7 Total 759 597 545 Table 5b: Distribution of the 1994 NES Cross-section sample by current age and education 1994 post 1996 pre 1996 post AGE HIGHEST 1994 wghtd wghtd wghtd EDUCATION CPS n unwtd % % n unwtd % % n unwtd % % (Sel,NR) (Sel,NR) (Sel,NR) 18-21 No College 4.2 37 3.6 4.2 12 1.7 1.8 8 1.2 1.3 College 3.1 18 1.7 2.4 6 0.8 1.1 5 0.8 1.0 TOTAL 7.3 55 5.3 6.6 18 2.5 3.0 13 2.0 2.3 22-29 No HS Diploma 2.3 14 1.4 1.3 6 0.8 1.0 3 0.5 0.5 HS Diploma 5.5 45 4.3 4.5 23 3.2 3.8 17 2.6 3.0 Some College 5.3 58 5.6 5.7 31 4.3 4.0 27 4.1 3.9 College Graduate 3.4 35 3.4 3.3 22 3.1 3.0 20 3.1 3.1 TOTAL 16.5 152 14.7 14.7 82 11.4 11.7 67 10.3 10.5 30-39 No HS Diploma 2.9 21 2.0 2.1 12 1.7 1.7 9 1.4 1.4 HS Diploma 8.1 93 9.0 9.0 57 7.9 7.5 51 7.8 7.1 Some College 6.6 73 7.1 6.8 53 7.4 7.3 47 7.2 7.2 College Graduate 5.7 59 5.7 5.7 41 5.7 5.9 38 5.8 6.3 TOTAL 23.3 246 23.7 23.7 163 22.7 22.4 145 22.2 22.0 40-49 No HS Diploma 2.3 14 1.4 1.6 11 1.5 1.9 9 1.4 1.7 HS Diploma 6.1 53 5.1 6.0 43 6.0 6.5 41 6.3 6.8 Some College 5.2 52 5.0 5.0 43 6.0 6.3 39 6.0 6.4 College Graduate 5.4 67 6.5 6.6 57 7.9 8.1 53 8.1 8.4 TOTAL 19.0 186 18.0 19.2 154 21.4 22.8 142 21.8 23.3 50-59 No HS Diploma 2.4 16 1.5 1.6 12 1.7 1.6 12 1.8 1.8 HS Diploma 4.6 43 4.2 4.4 36 5.0 5.4 29 4.4 4.9 Some College 2.8 24 2.3 2.2 16 2.2 2.1 16 2.4 2.3 College Graduate 2.8 29 2.8 3.1 25 3.5 3.8 25 3.8 4.2 TOTAL 12.5 112 10.8 11.1 89 12.4 13.0 82 12.6 13.3 60-69 No HS Diploma 3.0 42 4.1 3.7 25 3.5 3.3 23 3.5 3.4 HS Diploma 3.8 62 6.0 5.5 39 5.4 5.2 35 5.4 5.0 Some College 1.9 21 2.0 1.9 21 2.9 3.1 21 3.2 3.4 College Graduate 1.7 19 1.8 2.0 14 2.0 1.9 14 2.2 2.1 TOTAL 10.3 144 13.9 13.2 99 13.8 13.4 93 14.3 13.9 70+ No HS Diploma 4.6 51 4.9 4.1 37 5.1 4.4 36 5.5 4.9 HS Diploma 3.7 42 4.1 3.6 33 4.6 4.1 32 4.9 4.4 Some College 1.7 22 2.1 1.8 22 3.1 2.4 21 3.2 2.6 College Graduate 1.3 26 2.5 2.0 22 3.1 2.8 21 3.2 2.9 TOTAL 11.2 141 13.6 11.5 114 15.9 13.7 110 16.9 14.7 1036 719 652 Summary by Education level: 1994 post 1996 pre 1996 post 94 CPS n Unwtd % Wtd % n Unwtd % Wtd % n Unwtd % Wtd % No HS Diploma 19.5 171 16.5 16.1 110 15.3 15.2 96 14.7 14.4 HS Diploma 33.9 362 34.9 35.6 236 32.8 33.1 209 32.1 31.8 Some College 26.4 268 25.9 25.8 192 26.7 26.3 176 27.0 26.8 College Graduate 20.3 235 22.7 22.6 181 25.2 25.4 171 26.2 27.0 Total 1036 719 652 Table 5c: Distribution of the 1996 NES Cross-section sample by current age and education 1996 pre 1996 post AGE HIGHEST 1996 Unwtd Wghtd Unwtd Wghtd (Cur- EDUCATION CPS n % % n % % rent) (Sel,NR) (Sel,NR) 18-21 No College 4.4 12 3.0 4.1 9 2.7 3.6 College 2.9 23 5.8 7.5 21 6.2 8.2 TOTAL 7.3 35 8.8 11.6 30 8.9 11.8 22-29 No HS Diploma 2.0 4 1.0 0.8 2 0.6 0.5 HS Dip- loma 4.9 18 4.5 3.9 13 3.9 3.3 Some College 5.0 13 3.3 2.9 10 3.0 2.9 College Graduate 3.7 17 4.3 4.0 16 4.8 4.4 TOTAL 15.6 52 13.1 11.5 41 12.2 11.0 30-39 No HS Diploma 2.9 4 1.0 0.8 4 1.2 0.9 HS Dip- loma 7.6 36 9.0 9.0 29 8.6 8.7 Some College 6.3 31 7.8 7.6 29 8.6 8.4 College Graduate 5.9 28 7.0 6.6 23 6.8 6.3 TOTAL 22.8 99 24.9 24.1 85 25.2 24.4 40-49 No HS Diploma 2.4 5 1.3 1.0 4 1.2 0.9 HS Dip- loma 6.6 23 5.8 6.2 18 5.3 5.6 Some College 5.5 25 6.3 6.8 20 5.9 6.3 College Graduate 5.7 22 5.5 5.5 19 5.6 5.7 TOTAL 20.1 75 18.8 19.6 61 18.1 18.5 50-59 No HS Diploma 2.3 7 1.8 1.7 6 1.8 1.7 HS Dip- loma 4.6 17 4.3 4.9 15 4.4 4.9 Some College 2.9 17 4.3 3.6 15 4.4 3.8 College Graduate 3.0 15 3.8 4.8 15 4.4 5.7 TOTAL 12.8 56 14.1 15.2 51 15.1 16.1 60-69 No HS Diploma 2.8 9 2.3 1.9 9 2.7 2.3 HS Dip- loma 3.7 12 3.0 2.3 11 3.3 2.6 Some College 1.9 9 2.3 2.5 7 2.1 2.2 College Graduate 1.8 7 1.8 2.2 6 1.8 2.3 TOTAL 10.1 37 9.3 8.9 33 9.8 9.3 70+ No HS Diploma 4.3 13 3.3 2.8 10 3.0 2.5 HS Dip- loma 3.7 22 5.5 4.6 18 5.3 4.5 Some College 1.9 6 1.5 1.3 5 1.5 1.4 College Graduate 1.5 3 0.8 0.5 3 0.9 0.6 TOTAL 11.3 44 11.1 9.2 36 10.7 8.9 398 337 Summary by Education level: 1996 pre 1996 post 96 CPS n Unwtd% Wtd% n Unwtd% Wtd% No HS Diploma 18.9 45 11.3 10.3 37 11.0 9.8 HS Diploma 33.2 137 34.4 33.8 111 32.9 32.1 Some College 26.4 124 31.2 32.3 107 31.8 33.1 College Graduate 21.5 92 23.1 23.6 82 24.3 25.0 Total 398 337 9. Post-stratification Factor for the Revised Weights: The post-stratification factor for the revised NES cross-sectional weights was developed to address problems caused by under-representation of age or education groups. To do this, the corresponding CPS estimates were used as the benchmark standard. The post-stratification factor was calculated by dividing the CPS percent by the weighted (base weight) NES percent for each of the age by education subgroups. Note that the youngest age group consists of only two education groups (no college / at least some college) because of the small number of 18 to 21 year-olds in the samples (especially in 1994 and 1996)and because level of education is not as meaningful for the youngest age group since they may still be in school. Tables 6a, 6b and 6c show the data used to construct the post- stratification factors for the combined panel and cross-section NES samples for each year. As an example of the calculation, in the 1994 NES sample (Table 6b) there were fifty 18-21 year olds with no college education. These people represent approximately 2.8 percent (unweighted) of the 1994 sample. When the base weight is applied, the weighted percent is about 3.5. On the left side of each table the CPS statistics for the corresponding year are listed. These are used as estimates of the population percentages by age and education. The post- stratification factor is calculated for each subgroup by dividing the CPS estimate by the weighted percent. In the 1994 example this is 4.2 divided by approximately 3.5. Although the percentages in the tables are shown to the nearest tenth of a percent, the calculation of the post-stratification factors used percents to the nearest hundredth of a percent. Table 6a: Distributions and post-stratification factors for the combined 1992 samples 1992 pre 1992 post AGE HIGHEST 1992 Unwtd Wghtd Post-strat Unwtd Wghtd Post-strat (Cur- EDUCATION CPS n % % factor n % % factor rent) (Sel,NR) (92 cps) (Sel,NR) (92 cps) 18-21 No College 4.3 37 3.3 4.6 0.918 34 3.4 4.7 0.900 College 3.1 25 2.2 2.3 1.313 24 2.4 2.6 1.200 TOTAL 7.3 62 5.5 7.0 58 5.8 7.3 22-29 No HS Diploma 2.4 15 1.3 1.6 1.506 15 1.5 1.8 1.343 HS Dip- loma 6.1 53 4.7 4.5 1.354 47 4.7 4.6 1.319 Some College 4.8 63 5.6 5.6 0.857 56 5.6 5.6 0.864 College Graduate 3.5 42 3.7 3.7 0.935 38 3.8 3.8 0.908 TOTAL 16.7 173 15.4 15.4 156 15.5 15.8 30-39 No HS Diploma 3.0 23 2.0 1.6 1.833 22 2.2 1.7 1.747 HS Dip- loma 8.7 89 7.9 8.0 1.083 78 7.8 7.8 1.109 Some College 6.1 93 8.3 8.0 0.763 86 8.6 8.3 0.733 College Graduate 5.7 107 9.5 9.2 0.615 103 10.2 10.0 0.567 TOTAL 23.4 312 27.7 26.8 289 28.8 27.8 40-49 No HS Diploma 2.4 13 1.2 1.2 2.009 13 1.3 1.3 1.794 HS Dip- loma 6.1 52 4.6 5.1 1.204 48 4.8 5.2 1.180 Some College 4.7 48 4.3 4.7 1.013 40 4.0 4.2 1.113 College Graduate 5.0 70 6.2 6.3 0.791 62 6.2 6.2 0.797 TOTAL 18.1 183 16.3 17.2 163 16.2 16.9 50-59 No HS Diploma 2.8 27 2.4 2.5 1.118 24 2.4 2.4 1.155 HS Dip- loma 4.7 43 3.8 4.6 1.020 40 4.0 4.8 0.973 Some College 2.4 28 2.5 2.4 0.959 25 2.5 2.5 0.955 College Graduate 2.5 45 4.0 4.2 0.594 39 3.9 4.1 0.609 TOTAL 12.3 143 12.7 13.7 128 12.7 13.7 60-69 No HS Diploma 3.5 37 3.3 3.0 1.182 30 3.0 2.7 1.282 HS Dip- loma 4.2 50 4.4 4.0 1.055 39 3.9 3.5 1.199 Some College 1.8 19 1.7 1.8 1.000 14 1.4 1.4 1.250 College Graduate 1.7 16 1.4 1.5 1.114 16 1.6 1.7 0.994 TOTAL 11.1 122 10.8 10.2 99 9.9 9.3 70+ No HS Diploma 4.8 54 4.8 3.8 1.268 42 4.2 3.1 1.540 HS Dip- loma 3.6 31 2.8 2.2 1.633 30 3.0 2.4 1.490 Some College 1.5 27 2.4 2.3 0.642 24 2.4 2.2 0.671 College Graduate 1.2 19 1.7 1.5 0.791 16 1.6 1.5 0.818 TOTAL 11.1 131 11.6 9.8 112 11.1 9.2 1126 1005 Summary by Education Level: 1992 pre 1992 post 92 CPS n Unwtd% Wtd% n Unwtd% Wtd% No HS Diploma 20.8 176 15.6 14.4 153 15.2 13.9 HS Diploma 35.5 348 30.9 32.1 309 30.8 32.1 Some College 24.3 302 26.8 27.0 268 26.7 26.7 College Graduate 19.5 300 26.6 26.5 275 27.4 27.4 Total 1126 1005 Table 6b: Distributions and post-stratification factors for the combined 1994 samples 1994 post AGE HIGHEST 1994 Unwtd Wghtd Post-strat (Cur- EDUCATION CPS n % % factor rent) (Sel,NR) (94 cps) 18-21 No College 4.2 50 2.8 3.5 1.206 College 3.1 22 1.2 1.7 1.838 TOTAL 7.3 72 4.0 5.2 22-29 No HS Diploma 2.3 23 1.3 1.2 1.924 HS Diploma 5.5 72 4.0 4.4 1.252 Some College 5.3 104 5.8 5.9 0.898 College Graduate 3.4 51 2.8 2.8 1.230 TOTAL 16.5 250 13.9 14.2 30-39 No HS Diploma 2.9 37 2.1 2.0 1.503 HS Diploma 8.1 147 8.2 8.2 0.979 Some College 6.6 150 8.4 8.1 0.822 College Graduate 5.7 133 7.4 7.4 0.776 TOTAL 23.3 467 26.0 25.6 40-49 No HS Diploma 2.3 25 1.4 1.5 1.575 HS Diploma 6.1 92 5.1 5.9 1.041 Some College 5.2 78 4.4 4.4 1.189 College Graduate 5.4 130 7.2 7.2 0.750 TOTAL 19.0 325 18.1 18.9 50-59 No HS Diploma 2.4 29 1.6 1.7 1.407 HS Diploma 4.6 78 4.4 4.7 0.983 Some College 2.8 47 2.6 2.6 1.069 College Graduate 2.8 61 3.4 3.7 0.736 TOTAL 12.5 215 12.0 12.7 60-69 No HS Diploma 3.0 63 3.5 3.3 0.895 HS Diploma 3.8 90 5.0 4.7 0.805 Some College 1.9 31 1.7 1.6 1.175 College Graduate 1.7 34 1.9 1.9 0.869 TOTAL 10.3 218 12.1 11.6 70+ No HS Diploma 4.6 86 4.8 3.8 1.188 HS Diploma 3.7 72 4.0 3.5 1.046 Some College 1.7 45 2.5 2.2 0.744 College Graduate 1.3 45 2.5 2.3 0.559 TOTAL 11.2 248 13.8 11.9 1795 Summary by Education level: 1994 post 94 CPS n Unwtd% Wtd% No HS Diploma 19.5 279 15.5 14.7 HS Diploma 33.9 585 32.6 33.7 Some College 26.4 477 26.6 26.4 College Graduate 20.3 454 25.3 25.3 Total 1795 Table 6c: Distributions and post-stratification factors for the combined 1996 samples 1996 pre 1996 post AGE HIGHEST 1996 Unwtd Wghtd Post-strat Unwtd Wghtd Post-strat (Cur- EDUCATION CPS n % % factor n % % factor rent) 18-21 No College 4.4 24 1.4 1.8 2.383 17 1.1 1.5 3.007 College 2.9 30 1.8 2.6 1.140 27 1.8 2.6 1.118 TOTAL 7.3 54 3.2 4.4 44 2.9 4.1 22-29 No HS Diploma 2.0 14 0.8 0.9 2.349 8 0.5 0.6 3.673 HS Diploma 4.9 61 3.6 3.9 1.245 45 2.9 3.1 1.554 Some College 5.0 65 3.8 3.6 1.388 55 3.6 3.5 1.424 College Graduate 3.7 61 3.6 3.6 1.025 56 3.6 3.8 0.981 TOTAL 15.6 201 11.7 12.0 164 10.7 11.0 30-39 No HS Diploma 2.9 27 1.6 1.5 2.000 24 1.6 1.5 2.028 HS Diploma 7.6 133 7.8 7.5 1.013 117 7.6 7.3 1.041 Some College 6.3 138 8.1 7.9 0.805 123 8.0 7.9 0.804 College Graduate 5.9 123 7.2 7.2 0.811 111 7.2 7.4 0.799 TOTAL 22.8 421 24.6 24.1 375 24.4 24.0 40-49 No HS Diploma 2.4 22 1.3 1.3 1.865 18 1.2 1.1 2.080 HS Diploma 6.6 106 6.2 6.7 0.979 94 6.1 6.6 0.992 Some College 5.5 88 5.1 5.6 0.979 79 5.1 5.6 0.982 College Graduate 5.7 138 8.0 7.8 0.726 125 8.2 8.0 0.706 TOTAL 20.1 354 20.7 21.4 316 20.6 21.4 50-59 No HS Diploma 2.3 29 1.7 1.8 1.331 28 1.8 1.9 1.233 HS Diploma 4.6 82 4.8 5.2 0.880 68 4.4 4.8 0.958 Some College 2.9 55 3.2 3.1 0.914 53 3.5 3.4 0.847 College Graduate 3.0 68 4.0 4.4 0.672 67 4.4 4.9 0.606 TOTAL 12.8 234 13.7 14.5 216 14.1 15.0 60-69 No HS Diploma 2.8 47 2.7 2.5 1.096 44 2.9 2.7 1.030 HS Diploma 3.7 73 4.3 3.9 0.956 68 4.4 4.0 0.923 Some College 1.9 40 2.3 2.4 0.778 38 2.5 2.5 0.744 College Graduate 1.8 39 2.3 2.3 0.771 37 2.4 2.5 0.715 TOTAL 10.1 199 11.6 11.1 187 12.2 11.7 70+ No HS Diploma 4.3 81 4.7 3.9 1.098 75 4.9 4.0 1.063 HS Diploma 3.7 80 4.7 4.1 0.912 73 4.8 4.2 0.890 Some College 1.9 49 2.9 2.4 0.789 45 2.9 2.5 0.757 College Graduate 1.5 41 2.4 2.2 0.694 39 2.5 2.3 0.664 TOTAL 11.3 251 14.6 12.5 232 15.1 12.9 1714 1534 Summary by Education level: 1996 pre 1996 post 96 CPS n Unwtd% Wtd% n Unwtd% Wtd% No HS Diploma 18.9 230 13.4 12.5 203 13.2 12.2 HS Diploma 33.2 549 32.0 32.3 476 31.0 31.0 Some College 26.4 465 27.1 27.6 420 27.4 28.0 College Graduate 21.5 470 27.4 27.5 435 28.4 28.8 Total 1714 1534 10. "Trimming of weights The new weights for each sample -- 1992 pre and post, 1994 post and 1996 pre and post - were calculated as the product of the corresponding base weight and the post-stratification factor. The resulting products were then "trimmed" at the 1st and 99th percentiles in order to control the potential for high variation caused by these weights. The results of trimming at the 1st and 99th percentiles are shown in Table 7. The column labels "Before" and "After" indicate whether the statistics refer to the weight before or after trimming. Table 7: Comparison of final weight statistics before and after trimming 1992 pre 1992 post 1994 post Before After Before After Before After 1126 1126 1005 1005 1795 1795 mean 2.4136 2.4038 2.4092 2.4015 2.4201 2.4129 std dev 1.1252 1.0841 1.1075 1.0773 1.1817 1.1494 max 9.6008 5.5521 8.5612 5.2942 8.8935 6.5143 99th 5.5521 5.5521 5.2942 5.2942 6.6514 6.5143 1st 0.7796 0.7796 0.7471 0.7471 0.7999 0.7999 min 0.6480 0.7796 0.6644 0.7471 0.6370 0.7999 1996 pre 1996 post Before After Before After n 1714 1714 1 534 1534 mean 2.5241 2.5018 2.5112 2.4727 std dev 1.3853 1.2720 1.5714 1.3387 max 13.277 7.5774 16.753 8.4760 99th 7.5774 7.5774 8.4760 8.4760 1st 0.8930 0.8930 0.8496 0.8496 min 0.7104 0.8930 0.6406 0.8496 11. Results: The steps taken to address the 1996 NES overestimation of voting in the 1996 presidential election resulted in the development of post- stratified weights which account for individual selection probability, geographic related household nonresponse, and misrepresentation of any age by education subgroups. These revised, CPS-standardized weights were computed for the 1992 NES Pre and Post, 1994 NES Post and 1996 NES Pre and Post Election data sets. Users of previous weights released with the 1992, 1994 and 1996 data will find that these weights extend and combine the features of previously released weights. Table 8 compares the weighted ( final weights ) distributions by age and education to the CPS estimates. It is evident that the use of the final weights results in a distribution which is more similar to CPS population estimates. Table 8: Comparison of weighted (final weights) NES distribution to CPS population estimates for age by education subgroups. AGE HIGHEST '92 '92pre '92post '94 '94post '96 '96pre '96post (Cur- EDUCATION CPS NES NES CPS NES CPS NES NES rent) 18-21 No College 4.3 4.27 4.27 4.2 4.22 4.4 3.63 3.38 College 3.1 3.06 3.08 3.1 2.85 2.9 2.97 2.99 TOTAL 7.3 7.33 7.33 7.3 7.07 7.3 6.61 6.36 22-29 No HS Diploma 2.4 2.15 2.19 2.3 2.25 2.0 1.90 1.55 HS Diploma 6.1 6.10 6.09 5.5 5.47 4.9 4.93 4.95 Some College 4.8 4.86 4.85 5.3 5.30 5.0 5.09 5.11 College Graduate 3.5 3.48 3.48 3.4 3.43 3.7 3.72 3.73 TOTAL 16.7 16.60 16.61 16.5 16.45 15.6 15.63 15.35 30-39 No HS Diploma 3.0 2.99 2.99 2.9 2.94 2.9 2.96 2.99 HS Diploma 8.7 8.69 8.68 8.1 8.09 7.6 7.68 7.73 Some College 6.1 6.13 6.13 6.6 6.63 6.3 6.38 6.42 College Graduate 5.7 5.68 5.69 5.7 5.72 5.9 5.92 5.96 TOTAL 23.4 23.49 23.48 23.3 23.38 22.8 22.94 23.11 40-49 No HS Diploma 2.4 2.19 2.23 2.3 2.27 2.4 2.37 2.39 HS Diploma 6.1 6.11 6.11 6.1 6.13 6.6 6.61 6.65 Some College 4.7 4.75 4.74 5.2 5.18 5.5 5.56 5.59 College Graduate 5.0 4.97 4.97 5.4 5.45 5.7 5.73 5.76 TOTAL 18.1 18.02 18.05 19.0 19.03 20.1 20.27 20.39 50-59 No HS Diploma 2.8 2.76 2.75 2.4 2.36 2.3 2.36 2.37 HS Diploma 4.7 4.68 4.68 4.6 4.61 4.6 4.64 4.67 Some College 2.4 2.36 2.36 2.8 2.78 2.9 2.89 2.92 College Graduate 2.5 2.51 2.51 2.8 2.77 3.0 3.01 3.03 TOTAL 12.3 12.31 12.30 12.5 12.51 12.8 12.90 12.99 60-69 No HS Diploma 3.5 3.52 3.50 3.0 2.99 2.8 2.78 2.79 HS Diploma 4.2 4.24 4.24 3.8 3.81 3.7 3.72 3.75 Some College 1.8 1.76 1.75 1.9 1.89 1.9 1.91 1.92 College Graduate 1.7 1.67 1.67 1.7 1.66 1.8 1.80 1.81 TOTAL 11.1 11.19 11.17 10.3 10.35 10.1 10.21 10.27 70+ No HS Diploma 4.8 4.84 4.83 4.6 4.57 4.3 4.28 4.32 HS Diploma 3.6 3.52 3.53 3.7 3.68 3.7 3.75 3.78 Some College 1.5 1.48 1.48 1.7 1.67 1.9 1.88 1.90 College Graduate 1.2 1.22 1.22 1.3 1.30 1.5 1.52 1.53 TOTAL 11.1 11.06 11.06 11.2 11.22 11.3 11.44 11.53 Summary by Education level: '92pre '92post '94post '96pre '96post '92CPS NES NES '94CPS NES '96CPS NES NES No HS Diploma 20.8 19.19 19.32 19.5 18.83 18.9 18.25 17.63 HS Diploma 35.5 36.88 36.77 33.9 34.53 33.2 33.37 33.69 Some College 24.3 24.26 24.24 26.4 26.31 26.4 26.69 26.85 College Graduate 19.5 19.68 19.68 20.3 20.33 21.5 21.70 21.84 The final check on the revised weight is to use this trimmed final weight to estimate presidential election voting rates in 1992 and 1996. Table 9 shows that in both 1992 and 1996 the use of the final weight results in significantly lower estimates of voting. Table 9: Calculated Voting Rates in the 1992 and 1996 Presidential elections 1992 1996 unwghtd base weight final weight unwghtd base weight final weight 0.77 0.78 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.72 >> SAMPLE DESIGN 1992 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 >> SAMPLE DESIGN 1994 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY 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. 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]. 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). 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 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]. 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, the 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. 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 asymptotically 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. NOTES [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. [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. [3] Non-MSA segments were selected from the 1980 Census summary tape file series STF1B file, with minimum SSU size of 50 occupied H.U.s. [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. [5] Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. [6] Kish, L. (1949). "A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol 44, pp. 380-387. [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. [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. [10] 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.) [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. [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. [15] In constructing the analysis weight, a maximum of three eligible adults was allowed [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. [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. >> SAMPLE DESIGN 1996 ELECTION STUDY STUDY POPULATION The study population for the 1996 National Pre/Post-Election Study (NES) is defined to include all United States citizens of voting age on or before the 1996 Election Day. Eligible citizens must have resided in housing units 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 5th of November 1996. MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN The 1996 NES is based on a multi-stage area probability sample selected from the Survey Research Center's (SRC) National Sample design. Identification of the 1996 NES sample respondents was conducted using a four stage sampling process--a primary stage sampling of U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) or New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs)[1] 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 1980 SRC National Sample, from which the 1996 NES Panel was originally drawn is provided in the SRC publication titled 1980 SRC National Sample: Design and Development. A detailed documentation of the 1990 SRC National Sample, from which the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement was drawn, is provided in the SRC publication titled 1990 SRC National Sample: Design and Development. The 1996 NES sample design called for a 1996 NES Panel component consisting of all respondents to the 1994 NES study, originally drawn from the 1980 SRC National Sample, and a 1996 NES Cross-section component drawn from the 1990 SRC National Sample. Although both of these SRC National Samples are multi-stage area probability samples as described above, there are differences in specific details at the various stages of the two SRC National Samples which will be described below. Figure 1 shows in schematic detail the original sources of the components of the 1996 NES Sample. On this figure the "n" indicated in the 1992 and 1994 boxes is actually the number of Respondents from that year and component that became the Panel component two years later. Of course the "n" shown for the 1996 NES Panel and Cross-section components does not refer to 1996 Respondents but, for the 1996 Panel, to the total number of sample eligible households (i.e. the total of the Respondents from both components of 1994) and, for the Cross-section supplement, to the total selected number of listed housing units used in the 1996 NES. Figure 1: Source of 1996 NES Sample Cases 1980 SRC 1990 SRC National Sample National Sample 1992 NES Cross-section (n=1,005) 1994 NES 1994 NES Panel Cross-section (n=759) (n=1,036) 1996 NES 1996 NES Panel Cross-section (n=1,795) (n=803)[2] Both 1980 & 1990 National Samples 1996 NES Combined Sample (n=2,598) Selection Stages for the 1996 NES Panel Component: 1980 SRC National Sample[3] Primary Stage Selection: 1996 NES Panel Component 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 a 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 included both a Panel and a Cross-section component. The Panel component of the 1994 design consisted of all[4] respondents from the NES Cross-section component of the 1992 NES sample. The 1994 NES Cross-section component was a new selection of respondents from an area probability sample of households taken from the two-thirds partition of the SRC National Sample. The Panel component of the 1996 NES sample consists of all 1994 respondents from both of these 1994 NES components. See Figure 1. 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 1). This same disproportionate distribution was, of course, reflected in the Panel component of the 1994 NES sample and, thus carried to the 1996 NES Panel. While this led 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 "BI" PSU areas do represent a proper subsample of the 1980 National Sample design, separate longitudinal analysis of the 1996 NES Panel (i.e., analysis of combined 1994 Panel and 1994 Cross-section data)[5] can be undertaken. Table 1 identifies the PSUs for the Panel component of the 1996 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 also indicated on this table as well as the number of area segments carried over to the 1996 NES Panel component (see next section); all PSUs on this table are proportionately represented in the 1994 NES two-thirds Cross-section Sample. Second Stage Selection of Area Segments: 1996 NES Panel Component The second stage of the 1994 NES National Sample was selected directly from computerized files that were prepared from the 1990[6] 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; non-MSA SSU blocks were assigned a minimum measure of 50 1980 occupied HUs per SSU. Second stage sampling of area segments was performed with probabilities proportionate to the assigned measures of size (PPS). 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 combined Panel/Cross-section sample the number of area segments used in each PSU varied. 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 for the 1994 NES, 191 Panel and 363 Cross-section segments, 157 in the sixteen self-representing PSUs and 397 in the nonself-representing PSUs as shown in the last column of Table 1. In most cases, both 1994 NES Cross-section and 1994 NES Panel selections were made from the same area segments within each PSU, so in actual fact a total of 376 distinct 1980 National Sample area segments were used for the 1994 NES Post-election Study. Of these, 364 segments had respondents in 1994 and were carried over to the Panel component of the 1996 NES Study. Table 1: PSU Name and Number[7] of Panel Area Segments in the 1996 NES Sample Showing 1980 SRC National-Sample Stratum, Partition and MSA Status National Sample National Sample # of 1996 NES PSU Number and PSU Name Panel Segments Partition Six Largest Self-representing PSUs 501 A New York, NY-NJ 11 502 A Los Angeles, CA 10 503 A Chicago, IL 8 504 A Philadelphia, PA-NJ 6 505 A Detroit, MI 6 506 A San Francisco, CA 6 Ten Remaining Self-representing PSUs 507 B1 Washington, DC-MD-VA 6 508 B1 Dallas-Ft Worth, TX 6 509 A Houston, TX 5 510 A Boston, MA 3 511 B1 Nassau-Suffolk, NY 4 512 A St Louis, MO-IL 3 513 A Pittsburgh, PA 4 514 A Baltimore, MD 4 515 B1 Minneapolis, MN-WI 4 516 B1 Atlanta, GA 4 Nonself-representing MSAs: Northeast 517 A Buffalo, NY 5 518 B1 Newark, NJ 6 521 A New Haven, CT 5 523 A Atlantic City, NJ 5 524 A Manchester, NH 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: Midwest (North Central in 1980 Census) 526 A Milwaukee, WI 6 527 A Dayton, OH 5 528 B1 Kansas City, MO-KS 6 529 A Des Moines, IA 6 531 A Grand Rapids, MI 6 532 A Fort Wayne, IN 6 533 A Steubenville, OH-WV 6 534 B1 Saginaw, MI 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: South 536 A Birmingham, AL 6 539 A Columbus, GA-AL 6 540 A Miami, FL 6 542 B1 Jacksonville, FL 6 543 A Lakeland, FL 6 544 A McAllen, TX 6 545 B1 Waco, TX 6 547 A Wheeling, WV-OH 6 549 A Knoxville, TN 6 550 A Richmond, VA 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: West 553 A Seattle, WA 6 555 A Denver, CO 6 556 A Anaheim, CA 5 557 B1 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 6 558 A Fresno, CA 6 559 A Eugene, OR 6 560 B1 Phoenix, AZ 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: Northeast 463 A Schuyler County, NY 8 464 B1 Gardner County, MA 8 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: Midwest (North Central in 1980 Census) 465 A Sanilac County, MI 5 466 B1 Decatur County, IN 8 468 A Saline County, NE 7 470 A Mower County, MN 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: South 473 A Bulloch County, GA 7 474 B1 Sabine County, LA 6 476 A Hale County, TX 5 477 A Ashley County, AR 7 478 A Bedford County, TN 6 480 B1 Montgomery County, VA 8 481 A Robeson County, NC 7 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: West 482 A El Dorado-Alpine Counties, CA 6 484 A Carbon County, WY 5 Total Number of Segments 364 Third Stage Selection of Housing Units: 1996 NES Panel Component 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 Cross-section component of the 1994 NES sample design was selected from the 1980 SRC National Sample to yield an equal probability sample of households. The distribution of the 1994 NES Cross-section sample is that required by the two-thirds design of the 1980 SRC National Sample. The overall probability of selection for 1994 NES Cross-section households was f=0.00001885 or 0.1885 in 10,000. The equal probability sample of households was achieved for the 1994 NES 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.[8] The 1994 NES Panel consisted of all 1005 respondents for whom a complete interview was obtained in the 1992 NES Cross-section sample. Respondents in 1994 from both the 1994 Cross-section and the 1994 Panel comprise the 1996 NES Panel. Fourth Stage Respondent Selection: 1996 NES Panel Component Within each sampled 1994 NES 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 1992 to select the original Panel respondents. In 1994 the same Panel respondent (R) was sought for interview as had been interviewed in 1992. The 1996 Panel consists of all 1994 NES respondents for whom a complete interview was obtained in the 1994 NES Combined Cross-section and Panel sample. 1795 interviewed respondents make up the 1996 NES Panel component. Selection Stages for the 1996 NES Cross-section Supplement: 1990 SRC National Sample Primary Stage Selection: 1996 NES Cross-section Supplement The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSUs) for the 1990 SRC National Sample, which depending on the sample stratum are either MSAs, New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs), single counties, independent cities, county equivalents or groupings of small counties, is based on the county-level 1990 Census Reports of Population and Housing.[10] Primary stage units were assigned to 108 explicit strata based on MSA/NECMA or non-MSA/NECMA status, PSU size, Census Region and geographic location within region. Twenty-eight of the 108 strata contain only a single self-representing PSU, each of which is included with certainty in the primary stage of sample selection. The remaining 80 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 1990 occupied housing units. The full 1990 SRC National Sample of 108 primary stage selections was designed to be optimal for surveys roughly three to five times the size of the 1996 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 a one-half sample or a three-quarter sample partition. Each of the partitions represents a stratified subselection from the full 108 (representing the coterminous United States as does the NES study) PSU design. The one-half sample partition of the 1990 National Sample was designed to be roughly comparable in number of PSUs to the two-thirds partition of the 1980 National Sample. The one-half partition of the 1990 National Sample (i.e., the "A" primary sampling units or PSUs) includes 18 of the 28 self-representing MSA PSUs and a stratified subsampling of 40 of the 80 nonself-representing PSUs of the SRC National Sample. The remaining PSUs are divided in half and designated as either B1 or B2. The three-quarter partition includes all of the "A" PSUs plus "B1" PSUs, i.e., five additional self-representing PSUs and twenty additional nonself-representing PSUs. Since the 1996 NES desired comparison of data over time from 1994 NES respondents, as well as a supplement of eligible 1996 respondents, the 1996 NES sample design includes both a Panel and a Cross-section component. The Panel component of the 1996 NES design consists of all respondents from the both the Panel and the Cross-section components of the 1994 NES sample.[11] The 1996 NES Cross-section supplement component is a new selection of respondents from an area probability sample of households taken from the one-half partition of the new 1990 SRC National Sample. Since emphasis in the 1996 NES Study was to be on the Panel component and a rather small number of 1996 NES Cross-section respondents was sought, a subselection was made from the non-self representing PSUs in the 1990 half-sample partition; seven nonself-representing MSA PSUs and seven non-MSA PSUs were randomly eliminated. Table 2 identifies the 44 PSUs in the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement by MSA status and Region and also indicates the number of area segments used for the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement (see next section on second stage selection). Second Stage Selection of Area Segments: 1996 NES Cross-section Supplement The second stage of the 1990 SRC National Sample, used for the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement, was selected directly from computerized files that were extracted for the selected PSUs from the 1990 U.S. Census summary file series STF1-B. These files (on CD Rom) contain the 1990 Census total population and housing unit (HU) data at the census block level. The designated second-stage sampling units (SSUs), termed "area segments", are comprised of census blocks in both the metropolitan (MSA) primary areas and in the rural areas of non-MSA primary areas. Each SSU block or block combination was assigned a measure of size equal to the total 1990 occupied housing unit count for the area; SSU block(s) were assigned a minimum measure of 72 1990 total HUs per MSA SSU and a minimum measure of 48 total HUs per non-MSA SSU. Second stage sampling of area segments was performed with probabilities proportionate to the assigned measures of size (PPS). Prior to the second-stage selection, the SSUs were ordered or implicitly stratified within each selected PSU. Block Groups were stratified by household income and, within these income groups, by geography (county, tract, and block). Counties within MSA PSUs having more than one county were ordered by size and distance from the central city of the MSA. (For details, refer to the SRC publication, 1990 National Sample: Design and Development.) For the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement the number of area segments used in each PSU varies. In the self-representing (SR) PSUs the number of area segments varies in proportion to the size of the primary stage unit, from a high of 13 area segments in the self-representing New York MSA and 12 area segments in Los Angeles MSA, to a low of 4 area segments in the smaller self-representing PSUs such as Cleveland, Miami-Hialeah or Nassau-Suffolk MSAs. All nonself-representing (NSR) PSUs were represented by 4 area segments each. A total of 210 NES Cross-section area segments were selected, 106 in the 18 self-representing PSUs and 104 in the nonself-representing PSUs as shown in Table 2. Table 2: PSU Name and Number of Area Segments in the 1996 NES Cross-section Supplement Showing 1990 SRC National-Sample Stratum, Partition, and MSA Status National Sample National Sample # of 1996 NES PSU Number and PSU Name Panel Segments Partition Eight Largest Self-representing PSUs 120 A New York, NY MSA 13 190 A Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA MSA 12 130 A Chicago, IL MSA 9 121 A Philadelphia, PA-NJ MSA 7 131 A Detroit, MI MSA 6 150 A Washington DC-MD-VA MSA 6 110 A Boston, MA NECMA 6 171 A Dallas and Ft Worth, TX CMSA 6 Ten Remaining Self-representing PSUs 170 A Houston, TX MSA 5 191 A Seattle-Tacoma, WA CMSA 4 141 A St Louis, MO-IL MSA 4 152 A Baltimore, MD MSA 4 122 A Nassau-Suffolk, NY MSA 4 194 A Anaheim-Santa Ana, CA MSA 4 132 A Cleveland, OH MSA 4 154 A Miami-Hialeah, FL MSA 4 181 A Denver, CO MSA 4 196 A San Francisco, CA MSA 4 Nonself-representing MSAs: Northeast 211 A New Haven-Waterbury-Meriden, CT NECMA 4 213 A Manchester-Nashua NH NECMA 4 220 A Buffalo, NY MSA 4 226 A Atlantic City, NJ MSA 4 Nonself-representing MSAs: Midwest 230 A Milwaukee, WI MSA 4 236 A Madison, WI MSA 4 239 A Steubenville-Wheeling, OH[12] 4 240 A Des Moines, IA MSA 4 Nonself-representing MSAs: South 250 A Richmond-Petersburg, VA MSA 4 255 A Columbus, GA-AL MSA 4 257 A Jacksonville, FL MSA 4 258 A Lakeland, FL MSA 4 260 A Knoxville TN MSA 4 262 A Birmingham, AL MSA 4 273 B1[13] Waco, TX MSA 4 274 A McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA 4 Nonself-representing MSAs: West 280 A Salt Lake City-Ogden etc, UT MSA 4 292 A Fresno, CA MSA 4 293 A Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA 4 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: Northeast 320 A Elk County, PA 4 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: Midwest 332 A Switzerland County, IN 4 342 A Taney County, MO 4 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: South 351 A Harrisonburg IC, VA 4 354 A Wheatfield County, GA 4 370 B1 Jim Wells County, TX 4 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: West 381 A Sandoval County, NM 4 Total Number of Segments 210 Third Stage Selection of Housing Units: 1996 NES Cross-section Supplement 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 1996 NES Cross-section supplement was systematically selected from the housing unit listings for the sampled area segments. The Cross-section supplement of the 1996 NES sample design was selected from the 1990 SRC National Sample to yield an equal probability sample of 803 listed housing units. The 1996 NES Cross-section supplement drawn was ten percent larger than the expected required sample size of 730 lines to allow for additional "reserve" sample replicates to be released if necessary to meet interview goals. The overall probability of selection for 1996 NES Cross-section households was f=0.000007500 or 0.07500 in 10,000. The equal probability sample of households was achieved for the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement 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.[14] Fourth Stage Respondent Selection: 1996 NES Cross-section Supplement Within each sampled 1996 NES Cross-section housing unit, the SRC interviewer prepared a complete listing of all eligible household members. Using an objective procedure described by Kish (1949)[15] 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 and 1994 to select the original Panel respondents. In 1996 the same Panel respondent (R) was sought for interview as had been interviewed in 1992 and 1994. 1996 NES SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The 1996 Pre/Post-election Study sought a total of 1750 interviews in the Pre-election phase, all of which were to be contacted for reinterview in the Post-election phase. THE PRE-ELECTION PHASE: The 1996 NES sample design included both Panel and Cross-section components for the Pre-election phase, but emphasis in the 1996 NES design was on obtaining a maximum number of Panel interviews. To this end, the 1996 NES Panel component included the full set of 1795 1994 NES respondents, 1036 from the 1994 NES Cross-section component and 759 from the 1994 NES Panel component. Given sample design assumptions for the 1996 NES Panel of an eligibility rate of 0.98 and response rate of 0.75, this component was expected to yield 1320 interviews in 1996. The 1996 NES Cross-section supplement was intended to yield 430 interviews. It was estimated that this would require a NES Cross-section sample draw of 730 housing units. This assumed an occupancy/growth rate of 0.86, an eligibility rate of 0.95 and a response rate of 0.72. The overall 1996 NES Pre-election sample Design is set out in Table 3, below. Table 3: Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions 1996 Pre/Post-election Survey Cross-section Panel Component Total Component Completed Interviews 430 1320 1750 Response Rate 0.72 0.75 Eligible Sample Households 597 1760 2357 Eligibility Rate 0.95 NA Panel Recontact Rate NA 0.98 Occupied Households 628 1795 2423 Occupancy/growth Rate 0.86 1.0 Total Sample Lines 730 1795 2525 Sample Design, and Assignment of Replicates The Cross-section supplement of the 1996 NES sample was drawn from the recently listed "A" or half-sample partition of the 1990 SRC National Sample. Because of the small size of this NES sample component, both the number of PSUs (selected primary areas) and the Secondary Selection Units (area segments) in the National half-sample were reduced by subselection for the 1996 NES sample design.[16] The 18 self-representing areas in the 1990 SRC National half-sample were all retained for the Cross-section supplement (8 of these remained self-representing in the half-sample and 10 represent not only their own MSA but their "pair" among the twenty additional self-representing primary areas of the full 1990 SRC National Sample design). Nineteen of the 26 non-selfrepresenting MSAs and 7 of the 14 non-MSAs were retained for the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement (or 26 of 40 NSR PSUs). The number of second stage units (SSUs or area segments) was also reduced for the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement. In self-representing PSUs, the number of segments was reduced by one-half with a minimum of four segments in any PSU. In the nonself-representing PSUs, the number of segments was reduced to two-thirds, from six to four segments per PSU. This resulted in a total of 210 segments or SSUs from which the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement was selected. There could be no reduction of the total number of segments or of persons in the 1996 NES Panel component since all 1994 NES respondents were to be recontacted for interview in 1996. The number of area segments represented by the 1795 respondents to the 1994 study eligible for the 1996 NES Panel was 364. Both the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement and the 1996 NES Panel were divided by segment into two replicate samples. Replicates 1 and 2 of the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement each included 105 segments. The original replicate assignment of Panel segments also resulted in an even division of those segments by replicate. 1996 NES Cross-section Supplement Selection and Assignment of Releases The 1996 NES Cross-section supplement drawn was ten percent larger than the expected required sample size of 730 listed housing units to allow for additional "reserve" sample replicates. Final number of housing units in the Cross-section supplement was 803 spread over the 210 area segments as outlined below. Selected lines in each of the two replicates were divided into two equal parts to accommodate 4 quarterly releases. The quarterly releases were designed to assess effect on voter opinion formation of news events which occurred at various times over the course of the study. The first replicate sample was divided into release 1 and 2; the second replicate sample into release 3 and 4. An additional two reserve releases (5 and 6) equal to 73 lines, or 10% of the total 1996 NES Cross-section supplement, were also drawn from Replicate 2 to be released with releases 3 and 4, if necessary to meet study interview goals. Both reserve releases 5 and 6 were, in fact, released. Although Replicates 1 and 2 are each made up of different area segments (except as modified by the request to include Panel Rs needing tracking in Releases 1 and 2), all 1996 NES Cross-section and Panel Primary Areas are included in each Replicate if they contained more than a single segment. In contrast to the assignment of replicates by area segment, releases were originally specified in the 1996 NES sample design to be assigned across the HU-level file, rather than by area segment so any segment having more than one selection will have the selections distributed across Releases 1 and 2 (or 3, 4, 5 and 6 for Replicate 2 segments). In order to increase the efficiency of the field interviewing effort, original releases 3 and 4 were later revised such that their assignment was based on area segment, rather than across all Replicate 2 segments. 1996 NES PRE-ELECTION SAMPLE OUTCOME: Table 4: 1996 NES Pre-Election Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions Compared to Sample Outcome. 1996 Pre/Post-election Survey [17] Cross-section Panel Component Total Component Design Outcome Design Outcome Design Outcome Completed Interviews 430 398 1320 1316 1750 1714 Response Rate 0.72 0.60 0.75 0.76 Eligible Sample Households 597 666 1760 1741 2357 2407 Eligibility Rate 0.95 0.96 NA NA Panel Recontact Rate NA NA 0.98 0.98 Occupied Households 628 692 1795 1781 2423 2473 Occupancy/growth Rate 0.86 0.85 1.00 1.00 Total Sample Lines 730 817 1795 1788 2525 2605 A comparison of the total design figures compared to the Pre-election outcome figures in Table 4 indicates the following: for the 1996 NES Panel component, where there was no option for reserve releases, and where primary field effort was placed, eligibility and response rates equal to those anticipated resulted in a number of completed interviews very close to that projected by the sample design. On the other hand, for the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement, even with the release of reserve replicates, a lower than expected response rate resulted in a seven percent shortfall in number of completed interviews. Since the Cross-section supplement made up less than one-quarter of the total sample design, the overall shortfall in number of completed interviews was only two percent. THE POST-ELECTION PHASE: The study design for the 1996 Post-election component of the NES Study called for recontact of all respondents to the 1996 NES Pre-election survey (both those originally in the Panel component and those in the Cross-section supplement.) The Post-election phase of the 1996 NES included a mode experiment which called for the random assignment, by area segment, of the majority of these respondents, to be recontacted after the election for an interview either by phone or in person. Those to be excluded from this mode experiment were those respondents either 1) who were interviewed by phone during the Pre-election study or 2) who were known to not have a phone. The assignment to either the phone or the in-person mode was made on the basis of segment, such that approximately half of the Post-election recontacts made by phone and the other half in person. Since the Post-election phase of the study involved no new respondents--all respondents were considered Panel respondents for this phase. A combined recontact and response rate of 85% was assumed for the Post-election phase of the 1996 NES to yield a total of 1460 interviews. Of the total of 1714 interviews completed for the 1996 Pre-election study, the sample released for Post-election recontact was distributed as shown in Table 5. Post-election interview outcome is also shown on this table. The combined recontact and response rate exceeded expectations resulting in a total number of Post-election interviews over the 1460 goal. Table 5. Post-election Mode Distribution and Interview Outcome for 1996 NES.[18] Mode # Released NI NIP Refusal Interviews Recontact/ Response Rate Face-to-Face: 875 35 23 42 774 0.89 Include in Experiment 742 22 17 34 668 0.90 Exclude from Experiment 133 13 6 8 106 0.80 Telephone: 839 25 17 37 760 0.90 Include in Experiment 759 21 16 33 689 0.91 Exclude from Experiment 80 4 1 4 71 0.89 Total 1714 60 40 79 1534 0.90 WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1996 NES DATA The 1996 NES data set includes two final person-level analysis weights which incorporate sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification factors. One weight (variable #4) is for longitudinal micro-level analysis using the 1996 NES Panel. The other weight (variable #3) is for analysis of the 1996 NES combined sample (Panel component cases plus Cross-section supplement cases). In addition, a Time Series Weight (variable #5) which corrects for Panel attrition was constructed. This weight should be used in analyses which compare the 1996 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 Sample Selection Weight The area probability sample design for the 1996 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. Household Nonresponse Adjustment Factor Nonresponse adjustment factors were constructed at the household level separately for Panel and Cross-section component cases. Nonresponse adjustment cells for the relatively small 1996 NES Cross-section supplement were formed by crossing PSU type (Self-representing, Nonself-representing MSA or non-MSA) by the four Census regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West). A nonresponse factor equal to the inverse of the response rate in each cell was applied to the interview cases. For the larger number of Panel cases, 1996 nonresponse adjustment cells were initially formed by crossing PSU type 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). However, 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 6 and 7 show the 1996 nonresponse adjustment factors for the Cross-section supplement and for the Panel respectively. The 1996 NES Panel nonresponse prior to 1996 was reflected in the 1994 full sample weight which was used to construct 1996 NES Panel final sample weights. Table 6 Computation of Nonresponse Adjustment Weights -- 1996 NES Cross Section Supplement Nonresponse PSU Type Census Region Response Adjustment Rate (%) Weight SR-MSA Northeast 42.31 2.364 Midwest 53.33 1.875 South 53.85 1.857 West 50.70 1.972 NSR-MSA Northeast 52.63 1.900 Midwest 67.80 1.475 South 64.55 1.549 West 62.50 1.600 NSR-non MSA Northeast 60.00 1.667 Midwest 72.09 1.387 South 68.67 1.456 West 80.95 1.235 Table 7 Computation of Nonresponse Adjustment Weights -- 1996 NES Panel Component Nonresponse PSU Type Census Division Response Adjustment Rate (%) Weight SR-MSA New England & Middle Atlantic 72.90 1.372 East North 72.50 1.379 Central West North 86.05 1.162 Central South Atlantic 77.91 1.284 West South 63.64 1.571 Central Pacific 65.85 1.519 NSR-MSA New England & Middle Atlantic 71.96 1.390 East North 76.03 1.315 Central West North 70.77 1.413 Central South Atlantic 76.71 1.304 East South 64.71 1.545 Central West South 70.59 1.417 Central Mountain 76.98 1.299 Pacific 76.67 1.304 NSR-non MSA New England & 81.82 1.222 Middle Atlantic East North 84.62 1.182 Central West North 72.73 1.375 Central South Atlantic 84.96 1.177 East South 76.53 1.307 Central & West South Central Mountain & 70.73 1.414 Pacific 1996 Combined NES Post-stratification Factor As a first step in post-stratifying the sample to 1990 Census proportions, an intermediate weight for the 1996 NES combined sample (Cross-section plus Panel cases) was constructed as follows. First an intermediate weight for Cross-section supplement cases was constructed by multiplying the 1996 Cross-section nonresponse adjustment (Table 6) by the number of eligible persons in the sample household[19] by an inflation factor which is the 1995 estimated U.S. households divided by the number of eligible households (97,061,000/661). This initial weight was used to produce a weighted sex by age group by Census Region table for the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement. The age categories used were: 18-44 years, 45-64 years, and 65+ years. Post-stratification factors were constructed to match the sample proportions in the 24 sex by age by Region cells to the July 1995 Census population projections (Current Population Reports, P25-1111, Table 4) by dividing the Census total by the weighted sample estimate for each post- stratification cell. Because of the small number of Cross-section supplement cases, it is not intended that Cross-section only analysis be undertaken. An intermediate weight factor for the 1996 NES Panel cases was similarly constructed by multiplying the 1996 nonresponse adjustment (Table 7) by the 1994 full sample weight times the reciprocal of the constant used to center the 1994 weights (1993 estimated U.S. population 18 or more years of age / number of 1994 respondents).[20] For the 1996 NES Panel respondents, the number of eligible persons in the household and nonresponse prior to 1996 was reflected in the 1994 full sample weight. The last element in this computation was necessary to restore the Panel intermediate weight to its full representation of the population. This intermediate weight was used for Panel cases to produce a weighted sex by age group by Census Region table as described above. Again, post-stratification weights were constructed to match the sample proportions in the 24 sex by age group by Census Region cells to the July 1995 Census population projections. 1996 NES Panel Post-Stratification Factor For 1996 NES combined Panel and Cross-section analysis, the proportion of respondents contributed to the total sample was adjusted for by multiplying the Panel case intermediate weight by the proportion of Panel cases (1316/1714) and multiplying the Cross-section case intermediate weight by the proportion of Cross-section cases (398/1714). Thus a combined Cross-section and Panel post-stratification weight was produced, by dividing the 1995 Census estimated totals in the 24 sex by age group by Census Region cells by the corresponding weighted estimates for the combined sample. The figures for this combined post-stratification factor are shown in Table 8. It is these figures, centered as explained below, which are used for the final 1996 combined sample weight (V3). The final analysis weight (V4 ) for longitudinal analysis of the 1996 NES Panel is the product of the 1994 full sample weight, the 1996 Panel household nonresponse adjustment factor, and the Panel post-stratification factor. FINAL ANALYSIS WEIGHTS The final analysis weights are the product of the household level non-response adjustment factor, the number of eligible persons, the sample selection (inflation) weight and the post-stratification factor. The final analysis weight for the Panel-only analysis (V4) is centered so that the sum of the weights is equal to the total number of Panel respondents, 1316. The final analysis weights for the combined 1996 NES sample (V3) sums to 1714, the total number of respondents. These weights were constructed using the 1996 NES Pre-election data set. The nonresponse and attrition between the Pre and Post-election studies are not incorporated. Table 8: 1996 NES Combined (Cross-section and Panel) Sample Post-Stratification Factor Census Age Census Est. 1996 NES Post- Sex Region Group July 1, 1995 Weighted[21] Stratification Factor Male Northeast 18-44 10,440,000 9,885,067 1.056 45-64 5,019,000 5,329,059 0.942 65+ 2,892,000 3,152,420 0.917 Midwest 18-44 12,645,000 10,248,770 1.234 45-64 5,870,000 7,553,155 0.777 65+ 3,310,000 3,215,352 1.029 South 18-44 18,919,000 15,799,320 1.197 45-64 8,691,000 8,455,024 1.028 65+ 4,789,000 5,216,866 0.918 West 18-44 12,778,000 9,478,170 1.348 45-64 5,298,000 5,349,446 0.990 65+ 2,708,000 2,347,394 1.154 Female Northeast 18-44 10,630,000 8,990,888 1.182 45-64 5,503,000 5,895,540 0.933 65+ 4,378,000 3,556,867 1.231 Midwest 18-44 12,749,000 11,606,790 1.098 45-64 6,234,000 6,622,310 0.941 65+ 4,871,000 4,952,220 0.984 South 18-44 19,077,000 20,443,010 0.933 45-64 9,397,000 9,362,888 1.004 65+ 7,016,000 6,738,762 1.041 West 18-44 12,169,000 11,691,630 1.041 45-64 5,454,000 5,937,677 0.919 65+ 3,686,000 3,664,183 1.006 Totals 194,523,000 185,492,800 CONSTRUCTION OF TIME SERIES WEIGHT The 1996 NES Panel consists of 759 respondents originally selected for the 1992 NES Pre-election Study (1994 NES Panel) and 1036 respondents originally selected for the 1994 NES Study (1994 NES Cross-section). All of the 1005 1992 Post-election respondents were eligible for the 1994 NES Panel and 759 of these responded in 1994 and remained eligible for the 1996 NES Panel. Of these 759 respondents from the 1992 NES (1994 Panel), 597 were interviewed for the 1996 NES. Of the 1036 respondents from the 1994 Cross-section, 719 were interviewed in 1996 for an overall 1996 NES Panel response rate of 1316/1795 or 0.733.[22] Table 9: Time Series Weight Factors Years of Education Level Age Group Time Series Residence Weight Factor < 3 < HS Graduate 18-24 1.168 25-39 1.087 40-64 1.284 65 + 1.073 HS Graduate 17-24 1.169 25-39 1.060 40-64 0.897 65 + 1.748 > HS Graduate 17-24 0.958 25-39 0.978 40-64 0.950 65 + 0.791 3+ < HS Grad 17-39 1.205 40-64 0.917 65-74 1.018 75+ 1.605 HS Graduate 17-24 1.171 25-39 1.172 40-64 0.990 65-74 1.010 75+ 0.960 > HS Graduate 17-24 1.236 25-39 0.931 40-64 0.908 65-74 0.761 75+ 1.057 PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING ERROR ESTIMATION The 1996 NES sample design 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 1996 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: STATA, SUDAAN and PC SUDAAN, SUPERCARP AND PC CARP, and CLUSTERS. PC SUDAAN, PC CARP and STATA include procedures for estimation of sampling error both for descriptive statistics such as means, proportions, 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. Westat, Inc. has developed the Westvar PC 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 1996 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 10 defines the sampling error coding system for 1996 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 #2125). 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. For both the 1980 and 1990 SRC National Sample design controlled selection and a "one-per-stratum" PSU allocation are used to select the primary stage of the 1996 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 14 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 #2126) 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 10 shows the sampling error stratum and SECU codes to be used for the paired selection model for sampling error computations for any 1996 NES analyses; the same codes can be used when using the 1996 NES combined Cross-section/Panel data or when using 1996 NES Panel data separately. The first 42 strata reflect the two-thirds 1980 National Sample design used in 1994 and apply to the 1996 NES Panel. Strata 51 through 89 reflect the half sample 1990 National Sample design used for the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement. It can be seen from this table that the three-digit 1996 SE code is comprised of: first, the two-digit SE Stratum code followed by the one-digit SECU code. Table 10: 1996 National Election Study Sampling Error Codes SE SEC SE PSU Segment #s Total Stratum U Code Panel Respondents (1992,1994) (In 1996) 01 1 011 501 103 119 135 8 2 012 501 107 123 139 3 02 1 021 501 111 127 143 13 2 022 501 115 131 148 8 03 1 031 502 110 123 136 4 2 032 502 101 114 4 04 1 041 502 117 129 4 2 042 502 107 120 133 5 05 1 051 503 112 129 7 2 052 503 117 134 12 06 1 061 503 103 120 8 2 062 503 107 125 7 07 1 071 504 102 110 117 13 2 072 504 106 113 121 9 08 1 081 505 105 112 119 10 2 082 505 101 108 115 14 09 1 091 506 104 110 116 8 2 092 506 101 107 113 2 10 1 101 507 105 111 115 17 2 102 507 103 107 113 24 11 1 111 508 101 107 110 13 2 112 508 103 109 114 6 12 1 121 509 104 114 4 2 122 509 101 107 111 5 13 1 131 510 101 111 2 2 132 510 107 1 SE SEC SE PSU Segment #s Total Stratum U Code Panel Respondents (1992,1994) (In 1996) 14 1 141 511 105 111 6 2 142 511 102 108 8 15 1 151 512 102 3 2 152 512 105 111 4 16 1 161 513 101 107 2 2 162 513 104 110 5 17 1 171 514 104 110 4 2 172 514 101 107 2 18 1 181 515 105 111 15 2 182 515 102 108 15 19 1 191 516 102 108 10 2 192 516 105 111 10 20 1 201 517 103 105 13 107 109 111 2 202 518 101 103 105 28 107 109 111 21 1 211 521 103 105 107 12 109 111 2 212 523 103 105 107 13 109 111 22 1 221 524 102 104 106 11 108 110 112 2 222 534 102 104 106 18 108 110 112 23 1 231 526 101 103 105 19 107 109 111 2 232 527 101 103 105 13 109 111 24 1 241 528 102 104 106 30 108 110 112 2 242 529 102 104 106 16 108 110 112 25 1 251 531 102 104 106 29 108 110 112 2 252 532 102 104 106 18 108 110 112 26 1 261 533 102 104 106 14 108 110 112 2 262 547 101 103 105 12 107 109 111 27 1 271 536 101 103 105 14 107 109 111 2 272 539 101 103 105 17 107 109 111 28 1 281 540 101 103 105 11 107 109 111 2 282 542 102 104 106 31 108 110 112 29 1 291 543 102 104 106 29 108 110 112 2 292 545 103 105 107 42 109 111 30 1 301 544 101 103 105 18 107 109 111 2 302 476 001 004 006 9 007 012 31 1 311 549 101 103 105 18 107 109 111 2 312 550 101 103 105 24 107 109 111 32 1 321 553 102 104 106 15 108 110 112 2 322 555 101 103 105 30 107 109 111 33 1 331 556 101 105 107 18 109 111 2 332 557 102 104 106 33 108 110 112 34 1 341 558 102 104 106 24 108 110 112 2 342 559 101 103 105 25 107 109 111 35 1 351 560 104 108 112 44 2 352 560 102 106 110 23 36 1 361 463 001 002 003 005 14 007 008 009 011 2 362 464 001 002 004 005 31 008 009 010 012 37 1 371 465 001 005 22 007 009 011 2 372 466 001 002 004 005 44 008 010 011 012 38 1 381 468 001 002 006 23 007 008 011 012 2 382 470 002 003 005 25 007 011 012 39 1 391 473 001 005 006 008 31 009 011 012 2 392 474 001 002 004 007 20 008 011 40 1 401 477 001 003 005 006 26 007 010 012 2 402 478 002 005 006 20 008 010 012 41 1 411 480 002 005 006 007 44 008 010 011 012 2 412 481 001 004 005 007 21 008 009 011 42 1 421 482 002 004 005 18 007 009 012 2 422 484 001 004 009 11 011 012 1996 NES Cross-section Segments (from 1990 National Sample Frame): SE SEC SE PSU Segment #s Total Rs (1996) Stratum U Code (1996 Cross Section) 51 1 511 120 003, 019, 035, 051 4 067, 083, 099 2 512 120 011, 027, 043, 4 059, 075, 091 53 1 531 190 003, 019, 035, 4 196[23] 051, 067, 083 002, 014 2 532 011, 027, 043, 3 190 059, 075, 091 196[24] 010, 022 SE SEC SE PSU Segment #s Total Rs (1996) Stratum U Code (1996 Cross Section) 55 1 551 130 008, 024, 040, 4 056, 072 2 552 130 016, 032, 048, 3 064 57 1 571 121 006, 022, 038, 054 4 2 572 121 014, 030, 046 3 58 1 581 131 004, 020, 036 2 2 582 131 012, 028, 044 4 60 1 601 150 003, 019, 035 1 2 602 150 011, 027, 043 2 61 1 611 171 006, 022, 038 1 2 612 171 014, 030, 046 3 62 1 621 170 003, 019, 035 9 2 622 170 011, 027 5 63 1 631 110 008, 024, 040 2 2 632 110 016, 032, 048 3 64 1 641 122 004, 020 1 2 642 122 012, 028 1 65 1 651 141 008, 024 4 2 652 141 016, 032 4 66 1 661 132 001, 013 2 2 662 132 009, 021 1 67 1 671 152 008, 024 1 2 672 152 016, 032 4 68 1 681 154 003, 015 1 2 682 154 007, 019 1 69 1 691 194 004, 020 4 2 692 194 012, 028 3 70 1 701 191 005, 013, 021, 029 14 2 702 181 005, 009, 017, 021 8 71 1 711 220 005, 009, 017, 021 13 2 712 226 002, 006, 014, 018 9 72 1 721 211 003, 011, 015, 023 1 2 722 213 004, 008, 016, 020 7 73 1 731 230 002, 010, 014, 022 12 2 732 236 002, 010, 014, 022 12 76 1 761 239 001, 005, 013, 017 7 2 762 240 006, 010, 018, 022 9 77 1 771 262 002, 010, 014, 022 19 2 772 255 008, 012, 020, 024 10 78 1 781 257 004, 012, 016, 024 5 2 782 258 002, 006, 014, 018 12 79 1 791 273 003, 011, 015, 023 4 2 792 274 002, 006, 014, 018 5 81 1 811 260 003, 011, 015, 023 9 2 812 250 007, 011, 019, 023 7 84 1 841 292 001, 009, 013, 021 10 2 842 293 007, 011, 019, 023 10 85 1 851 280 002, 014 6 2 852 280 006, 018 4 86 1 861 320 006, 018 5 2 862 320 010, 022 7 87 1 871 332 004, 008, 016, 020 22 2 872 342 008, 012, 020, 024 9 88 1 881 351 001, 009, 013, 021 32 2 882 354 008, 012, 020, 024 13 89 1 891 370 005, 009, 017, 021 12 2 892 381 001, 005, 013, 017 17 Total: 1714 Generalized Sampling Error Results for the 1996 NES To assist NES analysts, the PC SUDAAN program was used to compute sampling errors for a wide-ranging example set of proportions estimated from the 1996 NES Pre-election Survey data set. For each estimate, sampling errors were computed for the total sample and for twenty demographic and political affiliation subclasses of the 1996 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 11. The mean value of deft, the square root of the design effect, was found to be 1.346. The design effect was primarily due to weighting effects (Kish, 1965) and did not vary significantly by subclass size. Therefore the generalized variance table is produced by multiplying the simple random sampling standard error for each proportion and sample size by the average deft for the set of sampling error computations. Incorporating the pattern of "design effects" observed in the extensive set of example computations, Table 11 provides approximate standard errors for percentage estimates based on the 1996 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 11 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 11: Generalized Variance Table. 1996 NES Pre/Post-election Survey. 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 6.730 6.594 6.168 5.384 4.038 200 4.759 4.663 4.362 3.807 2.855 300 3.886 3.807 3.561 3.108 2.331 400 3.365 3.297 3.084 2.692 2.019 500 3.010 2.949 2.758 2.408 1.806 750 2.475 2.408 2.252 1.966 1.474 1000 2.128 2.085 1.951 1.703 1.277 1250 1.904 1.865 1.745 1.523 1.142 1500 1.738 1.703 1.593 1.390 1.043 1714 1.626 1.593 1.490 1.300 0.975 References Binder, D.A. (1983), "On the variances of asymptotically 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. (1949). A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 44, pp. 380-387. 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. Rosenstone, Steven J., Kinder, Donald R., Miller, Warren E., & the National Election Studies Sample Design: Technical Memoranda, 1994 Election Study pp. 882-905 in Rosenstone, Steven J.,Kinder, Donald R., Miller, Warren E., & the National Election Studies, AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1994: POST-ELECTION SURVEY (ENHANCED WITH 1992 AND 1993 DATA) (Computer file). Conducted by University of Michigan Center for Political Studies. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer), 1995. Ann Arbor MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor), 1995. 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. Footnotes 1 NECMAs are used in the 1996 NES Cross-section component only, which is drawn from the 1990 SRC National Sample. 2 The 730 listed housing units projected to be necessary to produce the 430 interviews from the 1996 NES Cross-section supplement were increased by 10% (73) for reserve releases. The 803 listed housing units selected for this component of the 1996 NES Sample actually yielded 666 eligible households within which an interview was attempted. 3 Further description of the 1994 sample design can be found in "Sample Design: Technical Memoranda, 1994 Election Study" pp. 882-905 in Steven J. Rosenstone, Donald R. Kinder, Warren E. Miller and the National Election Studies. AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1994: POST-ELECTION SURVEY. 4 The 1994 NES Panel consisted of all 1005 Respondents from the 1992 NES 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 NES Cross-section respondents could not be found for re-interview in 1993. 5 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 NES Cross-section sample. It must be assumed that Panel attrition is not correlated with variables under consideration in the analysis. 6 Non-MSA segments were selected from the 1980 Census summary tape file series STF1B file, with minimum SSU size of 50 occupied HUs. 7 The number of segments shown for the 1996 NES Panel is the expected count; it is based on the number of 1994 NES Cross-section and Panel segments having selected lines. It is possible that some of these segments yielded no 1994 interviews and so do not actually show up in the 1996 Panel. 8 Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 9 Kish, L. (1949). "A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol 44, pp. 380-387. 10 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) June 1990 definitions of MSAs, NECMAs, county, parish, independent city. These, of course, differ in some respects from the primary stage unit (PSU) definitions used in the 1980 SRC National Sample so will not be strictly comparable to the 1996 NES Panel PSUs--particularly in New England where MSAs were used as PSUs in the 1980 National Sample and NECMAs were used as PSUs in the 1990 National Sample. 11 For more detailed description of original Panel component selection, see appropriate sections earlier in this document. 12 In the 1990 SRC National Sample, U.S. Census Region boundaries were maintained for purposes of stratification at the Primary Stage of selection. Since some MSA definitions cross Region boundaries, such MSAs were split and the MSA counties recombined in ways that maintained the Region boundary. This PSU actually contains the Ohio counties from both the Steubenville- Wierton, OH-WV MSA (Jefferson County, OH) and the Wheeling, WV-OH MSA (Belmont County, OH) and although it is made up of MSA counties--it is not a cohesive MSA by OMB 1990 definition. 13 For efficiency of field work the substitution of two "B1" PSUs was allowed for the "A" areas in the normal 1990 half-sample -- Waco, TX MSA for Oklahoma City, OK MSA and Jim Wells County, TX for Lavaca County, TX. 14 Kish, L. (1965). Survey Sampling, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 15 Kish, L. (1949). "A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol 44, pp. 380-387. 16 See appropriate sections earlier in this report for details of the Cross-section supplement of the 1996 NES sample. 17 Outcome figures are from the 1996 National Pre-election Study Field Progress Report, February 28, 1997. 18 Figures in this table are from the 1996 National Post-Election Study Field Progress Report, April 18, 1997. 19 In constructing the analysis weight, a maximum of three eligible adults was allowed. 20 See 1994 NES sample weight documentation. 21 Weighted by `Intermediate factor' for Cross-section and Panel cases weighted proportionately as described above for 1996 NES combined Cross-section and panel analysis. 22 This 1996 Panel response rate appears lower than the 0.76 reported on Table 4 which was computed based on recontacted households having the eligible R from the 1994 study and actual 1996 NES sample release and interview figures from the 1996 NES final field report. 23 The four San Francisco (separated from Oakland, CA in the 1990 OMB definition), CA MSA area segments were considered as part of the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA MSA for purposes of SE Code assignment to avoid having empty SE CODE cells since there were very few 1996 NES Cross-section respondents in this MSA. 24 See footnote #23. 25 The standard error of a percentage is a symmetric function with its maximum centered at p=50%; i.e., the standard error of p=40% and p=60% estimates are equal. >>1997 NES Pilot Technical Note - Randomization Problem April 24, 1998 The Surveycraft CATI system's 'Random Number Generation' features and their Effects on Analysis of the 1997 NES Pilot "Group threat" Experiment. Steve Heeringa, Division of Survey Technologies, Survey Research Center Executive Summary: A problem has been identified in the random assignment of treatments in an experimental question module of the 1997 NES Pilot survey instrument. The randomization problem has been linked to unexpected correlation in sequences of random number calls made within the Surveycraft computer-assisted interviewing system. The problem does produce an unbalanced distribution of sample cases to the cells of the factorial experimental design but does not lead to a bias in the interpretation of the experimental results. Details are provided below. A report that analyzes these items is the 1997 pilot study report by J. Bowers. A portion of the 1997 NES Pilot questionnaire (section 'J') includes a "group threat" factorial experimental design to study question order and 'threat level' treatment effects in a series of items that explore respondent views and prejudices toward African-Americans and Christian Fundamentalists. The full design involves 2 question sequence orderings - African-Americans first or Christian Fundamentalists first; 2 levels of intended "threat" - high and low; and 3 'threat domains': political, social and economic. The Survey Craft computer assisted interview (CAI) application used an internal random number generator to determine each subject's assignment to target group order and threat level for the questions about each target group. A different Surveycraft function was used to randomize the order of the three threat domains, once the group and threat level were determined. The intent of the CAI programming was to randomly assign the group order, threat level by group and threat domain for each respondent. Complete randomization of choice for each of these three experimental components is expected to yield equal numbers of cases at each combination of treatment for the 2 x 2 x 3 factorial design. In practice, due to sampling variability inherent in the randomization process, the actual counts in each experimental cell will be distributed about the expected sample size for each experimental cell. Within the Surveycraft CAI questionnaire for the 1997 NES Pilot, the random assignment of group order and threat level was determined by a call to an internal system random number generator. Examination of the final sample size distribution across the cells of this experimental question module suggests significant departures from the equal sample size per cell assumption. Specifically, there appears to be a problem in the randomization assignment for group order and threat level. Table 1 compares the expected and actual distributions of 1997 NES Pilot sample to experimental cells: Table 1 1997 NES Pilot Section J Question Experiment. Expected and Actual Distribution of Respondents to Treatment Categories. Target Group Order Threat Expected Actual Level Respondents Respondents First Series African Americans High 138 181 Low 138 116 Christian Fundamentalists High 138 53 Low 138 202 Second series African Americans High 138 100 Low 138 197 Christian Fundamentalists High 138 114 Low 138 141 Through analysis of actual random numbers generated in the course of the 1997 NES Pilot computer-assisted interviews and communication with the authors of Surveycraft, the randomization problem has been traced to Surveycraft's handling of random number seeds in sequential calls of the random number function. Our review finds that the initial random number draws to determine the target group for the first question sequence were performed correctly. Observed variation in numbers of cases assigned at random to the African-American (n=297) and Christian Fundamentalists (n=255) target group question order are due to sampling error in the random draws of binomial (0,1) indicator variables. Since the random draws to determine threat level in the first and second question sequences are correlated with this initial random draw they also are pure random numbers (albeit not independent of the initial draw). The randomization of the experiment is therefore not affected by the problem-the joint probability that a respondent receives a particular configuration of experimental treatments is independent of respondent characteristics or the sample design. Unfortunately, the correlated sequence of random numbers does affect the balance of the distribution of subjects to the experimental design cells. This will have an unspecified, but negative effect on the power to detect effects of target group ordering and threat level that are the object of the factorial experimental design. The third factor in the experimental design, random ordering of each question representing a threat domain, was performed by a separate Surveycraft internal function. To the best of our ability to test the mechanism, this dimension of the experiment appears free of the randomization problem identified for the group order and threat level experimental conditions. ISR/SRC has corrected the problem which created this situation, working with Surveycraft authors to identify programming changes and conventions that now permit independent random number sequence generation directly within the system. Random numbers to determine assignments to experimental treatment in question sequences were drawn in advance, tested for independence and preloaded for use by the interviewing application. These simulations demonstrated that sequences of independent random assignments to treatments are now functioning within the SRC Surveycraft CATI system. >> LIST OF TECHNICAL REPORTS AND OTHER OCCASIONAL PAPERS THROUGH 1996 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. Bowers, Jake. (February 1995) NES Pilot Study Efforts to Measure Values and Predispositions. Full text of paper in WordPerfect 6.0 is available via the NES FTP server. 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 Weighting 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. -- open -- 36. Traugott, Santa and Giovanna Morchio. (March 1990) "Assessment of Bias Due to Attrition and Sample Selection in the NES 1989 Pilot Study." 37. -- open -- 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. (April 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." 52. Tolleson-Rinehart, Sue, et.al. (May 1994) "The Reliability, Validity, and Scalability of Indicators of Gender Role Beliefs and Feminism the 1992 National Election Study: A Report to the ANES Board of Overseers." >> LIST OF PILOT STUDY REPORTS 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. Sears. A Report on Measures of American Identity and New "Ethnic" Issues in the 1991 NES Pilot Study. Undated. 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. _____. Addendum. February 2, 1992. Knack, Stephen. Social Connectedness and Voter Participation: Evidence from the 1991 NES Pilot Study. January 1992. _______. Social Altruism and Voter Turnout: Evidence from the 1991 NES Pilot Study. January, 1992. _______. Performance and Recommendations Summary for 1991 NES Pilot Variables #2828-2847. January 24, 1992. _______. 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. 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 Incumbent 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 Political Science Association. Albuquerque, New Mexico. (March 10-12, 1994) Zaller, John. Securing the District. March 11, 1994. 1995 Pilot Study Reports Alvarez, R. Michael. Survey Measures of Uncertainty: a Report to the National Election Studies Board on the Use of Certainty Questions to Measure Uncertainty about Candidate Traits and Issue Positions. Bartels, Larry M. Budget Items on 1995 Pilot Study. ________. Entertainment Television Items on 1995 Pilot Study. ________. Humanitarianism Items on 1995 Pilot Study. ________. Issue Scales Versus Effort Items on the 1995 Pilot Study ________. Talk Radio Items on 1995 Pilot Study. ________. Television News Items on 1995 Pilot Study. Berinsky, Adam and Steven Rosenstone. Evaluation of Environmental Policy Items on the 1995 NES Pilot Study. Buhr, Tami, Ann Crigler and Marion Just. Media Questions on the 1996 election study and related content analysis of media cover of the presidential campaign. Hansen, John Mark. Revealed Preference Budget Items on the 1995 National Election Pilot Study: a Report. Marcus, George E. And Michael Mackuen. Measuring Mood in the 1995 NES Pilot Study. Rabinowitz, George and Stuart Elaine Macdonald. New Issues on the 95 Pilot Study. Rahn, Wendy W. And John Transue. The Political Significance of Fear of Crime. Richardson, Amy. Questions on Public Attitudes Toward the Environment. Steenbergen, Marco R. Compassion and American Public Opinion: An Analysis of the NES Humanitarianism Scale. Zaller, John. Analysis of News Exposure Items from the 1995 Pilot 1997 Pilot Study Reports Barker, David. "Measures of Talk Radio Exposure and Attention." Burden, Barry C. and Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier. "Vote Likelihood and Institutional Trait Questions in the 1997 NES Pilot Study." Carman, Christopher and Christopher Wlezien. "Ideological Evaluations of Government Institutions and Policy." Cirksena, Kathy. "Report to the Board of Overseers on Respondent Preferences for Cash Incentive in the 1997 Pilot (from Panel Debriefing" Questions) Rahn, Wendy and Christina Wessel. "Perceptions of the Partisan Homogeneity of Social Groups: A Report to the NES Board of Overseers." Sapiro, Virginia. "Pro-Life People or Opponents of Abortion? Pro-Choice People or Supporters of Abortion? A Report on the NES 1997 Pilot Study." Wald, Kenneth D., et al. "Evaluation of the New Religious Items on the NES 1997 Pilot Study: A Report to the NES Board." Wlezien, Christopher. "Liberal-Conservative Evaluations of Groups." Wong, Cara. "Group Closeness: 1997 National Election Study Pilot Report." >> MASTER CODE CAMPAIGN ISSUES 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 underprivileged; 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; preserving 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 >> MASTER CODE CAMPAIGN POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS 1992 CODES (PART ONE) R Pays No Attention To Political Ads 001 R claims not to remember what the ads s/he saw were about - NFS 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. 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 1996 CODES (PART TWO) NOTE: The codes for political ads used in 1996 are different from the coding scheme used for political ads in 1992. As a result of experience with and recommendations about the wording of political ad questions in 1992, the Board of Overseers approved a different means of asking about recall of political advertisements in the 1996 NES. Two important differences set 1996 apart from 1992. One is that the question in 1996 asks the respondent to focus on recall of a single specific ad, the one you ad remember best'. In 1992 the question asked about "what do you remember about any of these ads"-- in the plural. Second, in 1992 the question concerned Presidential ads while in 1996 the questions did not restrict respondents to Presidential ads,. Thus the coding scheme for 1996, while developed from and similar to that of 1992, is not the same. Differing coding categories exist (specific ads mentioned in 1992 of course have no relevance in 1996) and the frequencies for similar or repeated categories are also different. The effort in 1996 was to code accurately the open-ended responses received in 1996 while producing codes that could be aggregated in ways that facilitate some kinds of comparisons between 1992 and 1996. R Pays No Attention To Political Ads 001 R claims not to remember what the ads s/he saw were about - NFS 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. 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/DESCRIBES GENERAL FEATURE(S) OF DOLE POLITICAL AD(S) 030 AMOUNT/FREQUENCY OF DOLE ADS - too many of them; they show too many in one evening/time period; see the same ones over and over. 031 DOLE 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 DOLE 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 DOLE 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 DOLE 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 DOLE - (too negative); (too much) backbiting/mudslinging; only try to tear opponents down/make personal attacks on opponent. 036 POSITIVE CAMPAIGNING BY DOLE - doesn't make personal attacks on opponent; talk about the candidate/why the candidate should be elected. 037 DOLE 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 DOLE 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 DOLE ADS SPECIFICALLY 040 DOLE AD NEGATIVE RE: CLINTON NFS ( badmouthing' downside of' Clinton) 048 OTHER POSITIVE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF DOLE POLITICAL ADS 049 OTHER NEGATIVE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF DOLE POLITICAL ADS R GIVES GENERAL ASSESSMENT/DESCRIBES GENERAL FEATURE(S) OF CLINTON POLITICAL AD(S) 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 060 NEGATIVE RE: DOLE, NFS 068 OTHER POSITIVE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF CLINTON POLITICAL ADS 069 OTHER NEGATIVE GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF CLINTON POLITICAL ADS R GIVES GENERAL ASSESSMENT/DESCRIBES GENERAL FEATURE(S) OF PEROT POLITICAL AD(S) 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 DESCRIBES SPECIFIC DOLE POLITICAL AD(S) 130 Dole ad - no other details given ("I know it was Dole's ad") 131 Dole ad - production details described (showed him in black and white, he was talking to some women) 132 Dole ad - 15% tax cut, would let people keep more of what they earn (i.e. would cut taxes) 133 Dole ad - war injuries, military service record 134 Dole ad - Russell KS values and community, personal history/life story (other than military record) 135 Dole ad - Dole's position on Medicare cuts 136 Dole ad - mention of Kemp 140 Dole ad - attacking Clinton for largest tax hike in history', criticizing Clinton for apologizing for raising taxes, general/other negative on Clinton's tax record 141 Dole ad - attacking Clinton re: Whitewater 142 Dole ad - attacking Clinton re: ethics of White House staff and cabinet 143 Dole ad - attacking Clinton re: immigration and border patrol 144 Dole ad - attacks Clinton as a liar-NFS; Clinton changes what he says from one time to the next; Clinton's inconsistencies; doesn't keep/breaks promises 145 Dole ad - Attacks Clinton re: drug policies, teen drug use going up, budget cuts for drug enforcement, Clinton on MTV re: pot use 146 Dole ad - Attacks Clinton re: family values 147 Dole ad - Attacks Clinton as a liberal, closet liberal; shows Clinton saying I'm not a liberal' 148 Dole ad - other negative re: Clinton 149 Dole ad - other specifics R DESCRIBES SPECIFIC CLINTON POLITICAL AD(S) 150 Clinton ad - no other details given 151 Clinton ad - production details described 152 Clinton ad - describing his stance on family values. 153 Clinton ad - describing the achievements of his first term in office 154 Clinton ad - describing his record on employment, jobs 155 Clinton ad - reforms welfare, makes jobs for unemployed/people on welfare 156 Clinton ad - saying Clinton makes up his own mind, is a leader 157 Clinton ad - Clinton's efforts on drugs; Dole criticisms wrong/unfair; appt. of drug czar; policies and funding to combat drugs 158 Clinton ad - Clinton's record on [illegal] immigration 159 Clinton ad - Clinton doing right on elderly health care, positive Record on Medicare 160 Clinton ad - supports education, supports student loan pgms, supports reading pgms 161 Clinton ad - support of issues affecting children (other than drug policy or education) 162 Clinton ad - record on gun control, puts more cops on streets, endorsed by police, tough on crime (excludes any drug-related--see 157) 163 Clinton ad - Other positive, not coded elsewhere 170 Clinton ad - compares Clinton's record favorably w/Dole's on multiple issues 171 Clinton ad - attacking Dole's stance on social security 172 Clinton ad - attacking Dole's position on school lunch, other children's issues, on education 173 Clinton ad - attacking Dole's Medicare voting record 174 Clinton ad - attacking Dole re: his comments on cigarettes, support of tobacco industry 175 Clinton ad - Attacking Dole's tax cut proposal 176 Clinton ad - negative attack on Dole/Gingrich 177 Clinton ad-neg re: Dole's voting record: wrong for the past, wrong for the future' 179 Clinton ad discussing Dole--NFS, other 169 Clinton ad - other specifics R DESCRIBES SPECIFIC PEROT POLITICAL AD(S) 180 Perot ad - no other details given. 181 Perot ad - production details described 182 Perot ad - used a lot of charts and graphs. 183 Perot ad - describing problems with the economy/the deficit/the budget, Perot will drop our taxes. 184 Perot ad - doesn't take special interest' money; not beholden to special interests 185 Perot ad - he'll abolish the IRS 186 Perot ad - announcing his candidacy ( I'm back'); announcing his VP candidate 187 Perot ad - re: not being in debates 189 Perot ad - other specifics R DESCRIBES A SPECIFIC EVENT THAT WAS NOT A POLITICAL AD 190 R describes a news event that clearly was not part of a political ad; mentions watching the convention or seeing a candidate on a news program or during debates. CANDIDATE NAMED IS NOT MAJOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (INCLUDES STATE AND LOCAL RACES) 191 R describes a political ad, but one for a congressional, state or local candidate R DESCRIBES OTHER ADS: CANDIDATE NOT ASCERTAINED/AD SPONSOR NOT ELSEWHERE IDENTIFIED 192 R describes ad concerning a specific issue (e.g.Medicare, abortion, gay rights, etc.). R IDENTIFIES AD AS BEING BY THE DEMOCRATS' (NOT ASSOCIATED W/ SPECIFIC CANDIDATE) 301-General positive about Democrats/Democratic candidates, NFS 302-Negative towards the Republicans 397-Other R IDENTIFIES AD AS BEING BY THE REPUBLICANS' (NOT ASSOCIATED W/ SPECIFIC CANDIDATE) 401-General positive about republicans/Republican candidates, NFS 402-Negative towards the Democrats 497-Other DON'T RECALL CANDIDATE, NO SPECIFIC CANDIDATE BUT AD DESCRIPTION MENTIONS CLINTON, DOLE or BOTH Clinton: 502 positive about Clinton: other and NFS 503 Clinton and taxes 504 Clinton and pot 505 negative about Clinton: other, NFS 506 names Clinton Dole: 520 negative about Dole's past political stands, Dole's voting record 521 Dole and taxes; the budget/finances, will help the little people on taxes 523 Dole general, other, NFS 524 Dole, recalls production details 525 Dole in WWII, injuries 526 negative towards Dole other, nfs, general Both Clinton and Dole: 598 R mentions both Clinton and Dole, general, other, NFS 599 Dole and Clinton contradict each other MISCELLANEOUS 996 Miscellaneous production details recalled 997 Other, miscellaneous 998 DK 999 NA >> MASTER CODE CANDIDATE NUMBER 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 and 1996] 50 Third party or independent Gubernatorial candidate ** 51 Democratic candidate in open Gubernatorial race 52 Republican candidate 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.] >> MASTER CODE BALLOT CARDS AND CANDIDATE LISTS CANDIDATE LISTS AND BALLOT CARDS - 1992 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 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 Campbell Democratic -- term not up 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 Campbell Democratic -- term not up 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 Campbell Democratic -- term not up 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 Campbell Democratic -- term not up 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 Whitman Republican --term not up 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 Whitman Republican --term not up 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 Whitman Republican --term not up 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 Whitman Republican --term not up 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 Whitman Republican --term not up 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 Whitman Republican --term not up 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 Whitman Republican --term not up 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 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 03 35 Norma Grill Democratic challenger 34 Peter T. King Republican incumbent 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 04 31 Ferne Steckler Democratic candidate 32 Daniel Frisa Republican candidate 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 05 33 Gary Ackerman Democratic incumbent 36 Grant M. Lally 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 06 33 Floyd H. Flake Democratic incumbent 36 Denny D. Bhagwandin 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 07 33 Thomas J. Manton Democratic incumbent 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 08 33 Jerrold Nadler Democratic incumbent 36 David Askren 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 10 33 Edolphus Towns Democratic incumbent 36 Amelia Smith Parker 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 11 33 Major R. Owens Democratic incumbent 36 Gary S. Popkin 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 14 33 Carolyn B. Maloney Democratic incumbent 36 Charles Millard 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 16 33 Jose E. Serrano Democratic incumbent 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 17 33 Eliot L. Engel Democratic incumbent 36 Edward T. Marshall 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 18 33 Nita M. Lowey Democratic incumbent 36 Andrew C. Hartzell, 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 19 31 Sue W. Kelly Democratic candidate 32 Hamilton Fish, Jr. Republican candidate 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 27 35 William A. Long Jr. Democratic challenger 34 Bill Paxon Republican incumbent 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 29 33 John J. LaFalce Democratic incumbent 36 William E. Miller 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 30 35 David Franczyk Democratic challenger 34 Jack Quinn Republican incumbent 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 31 34 Amo Houghton Republican incumbent 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 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 NeyRepublican 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 /s(1). 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 01 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 Hutchinson Republican incumbent 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 1996 CANDIDATE LISTS AND SAMPLE BALLOT CARDS ----------------------------------------------------- State: Alabama Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Roger Bedford Democratic candidate 12 Jeff Sessions Republican candidate 21 Howell Heflin Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 T.D. (Ted) Little Democratic candidate 32 Bob Riley Republican candidate 41 Glen Browder Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Alabama Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Roger Bedford Democratic candidate 12 Jeff Sessions Republican candidate 21 Howell Heflin Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Robert T. Wilson Jr. Democratic candidate 32 Robert Aderholt Republican candidate 41 Tom Bevill Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Alabama Congressional District: 5 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Roger Bedford Democratic candidate 12 Jeff Sessions Republican candidate 21 Howell Heflin Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Bud Cramer Democratic incumbent 36 Wayne Parker Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Alabama Congressional District: 6 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Roger Bedford Democratic candidate 12 Jeff Sessions Republican candidate 21 Howell Heflin Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Mary Lynn Bates Democratic challenger 34 Spencer Bachus Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Alabama Congressional District: 7 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Roger Bedford Democratic candidate 12 Jeff Sessions Republican candidate 21 Howell Heflin Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Earl E. Hilliard Democratic incumbent 36 Joe Powell Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Arizona Congressional District: 1 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 34 Matt Salmon Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Arizona Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Ed Pastor Democratic incumbent 36 Jim Buster Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Arizona Congressional District: 3 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Alexander Schneider Democratic challenger 34 Bob Stump Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Arizona Congressional District: 4 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Maria Elena Milton Democratic challenger 34 John Shadegg Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Arizona Congressional District: 6 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Steve Owens Democratic challenger 34 J.D. Hayworth Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Arkansas Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Winston Bryant Democratic candidate 12 Tim Hutchinson Republican candidate 21 David Pryor Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Vincent Tolliver Democratic challenger 34 Jay Dickey Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 3 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Vic Fazio Democratic incumbent 36 Tim LeFever Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 4 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Katie Hirning Democratic challenger 34 John T. Doolittle Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 6 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Lynn Woolsey Democratic incumbent 36 Duane C. Hughes Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 8 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Nancy Pelosi Democratic incumbent 36 Justin Raimondo Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 9 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Ronald V. Dellums Democratic incumbent 36 Deborah Wright Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 10 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Ellen O. Tauscher Democratic challenger 34 Bill Baker Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 12 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Tom Lantos Democratic incumbent 36 Storm Jenkins Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 13 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Pete Stark Democratic incumbent 36 James S. Fay Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 17 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Sam Farr Democratic incumbent 36 Jess Brown Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 19 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Paul Barile Democratic challenger 34 George P. Radanovich Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 20 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Cal Dooley Democratic incumbent 36 Trice Harvey Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 25 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Diane Trautman Democratic challenger 34 Howard P. 'Buck' McKeon Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 26 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Howard L. Berman Democratic incumbent 36 Bill Glass Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 27 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Doug Kahn Democratic candidate 32 James E. Rogan Republican candidate 42 Carlos J. Moorhead Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 28 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 David Levering Democratic challenger 34 David Dreier Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 29 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Henry A. Waxman Democratic incumbent 36 Paul Stepanek Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 32 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Julian C. Dixon Democratic incumbent 36 Larry Ardito Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 33 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Lucille Roybal-Allard Democratic incumbent 36 John P. Leonard Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 35 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Maxine Waters Democratic incumbent 36 Eric Carlson Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 36 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Jane Harman Democratic incumbent 36 Susan Brooks Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 38 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Rick Zbur Democratic challenger 34 Steve Horn Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 39 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 R.O. (Bob) Davis Democratic challenger 34 Ed Royce Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 40 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Robert (Bob) Conaway Democratic challenger 34 Jerry Lewis Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 42 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 George E. Brown Jr. Democratic incumbent 36 Linda M. Wilde Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 44 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Anita Rufus Democratic challenger 34 Sonny Bono Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 45 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Sally J. Alexander Democratic challenger 34 Dana Rohrabacher Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 46 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Loretta Sanchez Democratic challenger 34 Robert K. Dornan Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 47 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Tina Louise Laine Democratic challenger 34 Christopher Cox Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 48 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Dan Farrell Democratic challenger 34 Ron Packard Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: California Congressional District: 51 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Rita Tamerius Democratic challenger 34 Randy (Duke) Cunningham Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Colorado Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Tom Strickland Democratic candidate 12 Wayne Allard Republican candidate 22 Hank Brown Republican -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Diana Degette Democratic candidate 32 Joe Rogers Republican candidate 41 Pat Schroeder Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Colorado Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Tom Strickland Democratic candidate 12 Wayne Allard Republican candidate 22 Hank Brown Republican -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 David E. Skaggs Democratic incumbent 36 Pat Miller Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Colorado Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Tom Strickland Democratic candidate 12 Wayne Allard Republican candidate 22 Hank Brown Republican -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Guy Kelley Democratic candidate 32 Bob Schaffer Republican candidate 42 Wayne Allard Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Colorado Congressional District: 5 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Tom Strickland Democratic candidate 12 Wayne Allard Republican candidate 22 Hank Brown Republican -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Mike Robinson Democratic challenger 34 Joel Hefley Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Colorado Congressional District: 6 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Tom Strickland Democratic candidate 12 Wayne Allard Republican candidate 22 Hank Brown Republican -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Joan Fitz-Gerald Democratic challenger 34 Dan Schaefer Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Connecticut Congressional District: 3 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Rosa DeLauro Democratic incumbent 36 John Coppola Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Connecticut Congressional District: 5 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 James H. Maloney Democratic challenger 34 Gary A. Franks Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Allen Boyd Democratic candidate 32 Bill Sutton Republican candidate 41 Pete Peterson Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 12 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Mike Canady Democratic challenger 34 Charles T. Canady Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 13 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Sanford Gordon Democratic challenger 34 Dan Miller Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 15 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 John L. Byron Democratic challenger 34 David Weldon Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 17 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Carrie P. Meek Democratic incumbent 36 Wellington Rolle Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 18 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 34 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 21 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 34 Lincoln Diaz-Balart Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 23 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Alcee L. Hastings Democratic incumbent 36 Robert Paul Brown Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 3 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Corrine Brown Democratic incumbent 36 Preston James Fields Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 4 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 34 Tillie Fowler Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 6 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Newell O'Brien Democratic challenger 34 Cliff Stearns Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Florida Congressional District: 8 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Al Krulick Democratic challenger 34 Bill McCollum Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Georgia Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Max Cleland Democratic candidate 12 Guy Millner Republican candidate 21 Sam Nunn Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Rosemary Kaszans Democratic challenger 34 Jack Kingston Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Georgia Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Max Cleland Democratic candidate 12 Guy Millner Republican candidate 21 Sam Nunn Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Sanford Bishop Democratic incumbent 36 Darrel Ealum Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Georgia Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Max Cleland Democratic candidate 12 Guy Millner Republican candidate 21 Sam Nunn Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Jim Chafin Democratic challenger 34 Mac Collins Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Georgia Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Max Cleland Democratic candidate 12 Guy Millner Republican candidate 21 Sam Nunn Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Cynthia McKinney Democratic incumbent 36 John Mitnick Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Georgia Congressional District: 5 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Max Cleland Democratic candidate 12 Guy Millner Republican candidate 21 Sam Nunn Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 John Lewis Democratic incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Georgia Congressional District: 6 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Max Cleland Democratic candidate 12 Guy Millner Republican candidate 21 Sam Nunn Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Michael Coles Democratic challenger 34 Newt Gingrich Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Georgia Congressional District: 7 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Max Cleland Democratic candidate 12 Guy Millner Republican candidate 21 Sam Nunn Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Charlie Watts Democratic challenger 34 Bob Barr Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Georgia Congressional District: 9 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Max Cleland Democratic candidate 12 Guy Millner Republican candidate 21 Sam Nunn Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 McCracken (Ken) Poston Democratic challenger 34 Nathan Deal Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Hawaii Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Patsy T. Mink Democratic incumbent 36 Tom Pico Jr. Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Bobby L. Rush Democratic incumbent 36 Noel Naughton Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Jesse Jackson Jr. Democratic incumbent 36 Thomas Joseph Somer Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 William O. Lipinski Democratic incumbent 36 Jim Nalepa Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Luis V. Gutierrez Democratic incumbent 36 Thomas Mendoza Jr. Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 5 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Rod R. Blagojevich Democratic challenger 34 Michael Patrick FlanaganRepublican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 6 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Stephen de la Rosa Democratic challenger 34 Henry J. Hyde Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 7 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Danny K. Davis Democratic candidate 32 Randy Borow Republican candidate 41 Cardiss Collins Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 9 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Sidney R. Yates Democratic incumbent 36 Joseph Walsh Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 10 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Philip R. Torf Democratic challenger 34 John Edward Porter Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 11 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Clem Balanoff Democratic challenger 34 Jerry Weller Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 12 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Jerry F. Costello Democratic incumbent 36 Shapley R. Hunter Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 19 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Glenn Poshard Democratic incumbent 36 Brent Winters Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Illinois Congressional District: 20 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Richard J. Durbin Democratic candidate 12 Albert Salvi Republican candidate 21 Paul Simon Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Jay C. Hoffman Democratic candidate 32 John M. Shimkus Republican candidate 41 Richard J. Durbin Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Indiana Congressional District: 1 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Peter J. Visclosky Democratic incumbent 36 Michael Edward Petyo Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Indiana Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 R. Marc Carmichael Democratic challenger 34 David M. McIntosh Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Indiana Congressional District: 4 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Gerald L. Houseman Democratic challenger 34 Marc Edward Souder Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Indiana Congressional District: 6 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Carrie Dillard Trammell Democratic challenger 34 Dan Burton Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Indiana Congressional District: 7 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Robert F. Hellmann Democratic candidate 32 Edward A. Pease Republican candidate 42 John T. Myers Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Indiana Congressional District: 9 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Lee H. Hamilton Democratic incumbent 36 Jean Leising Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Iowa Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Tom Harkin Democratic incumbent 16 Jim Ross Lightfoot Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Leonard L. Boswell Democratic candidate 32 Mike Mahaffey Republican candidate 42 Jim Lightfoot Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Iowa Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Tom Harkin Democratic incumbent 16 Jim Ross Lightfoot Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Connie McBurney Democratic challenger 34 Greg Ganske Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Kansas Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Sally Thompson Democratic candidate 12 Pat Roberts Republican candidate 22 Nancy Kassebaum Republican -- retiring 93 Jill Docking Democratic candidate 94 Sam Brownback Republican candidate 96 Bob Dole Republican -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Judy Hancock Democratic candidate 32 Vince K. Snowbarger Republican candidate 42 Jan Meyers Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Louisiana Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Mary L. Landrieu Democratic candidate 12 Louis (Woody) Jenkins Republican candidate 21 Bennett Johnston. Democrat -- retriing (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Paul M. Chachere Democratic challenger 34 Jim McCrery Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Maryland Congressional District: 1 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Steven R. Eastaugh Democratic challenger 34 Wayne T. Gilchrest Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Maryland Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Connie DeJuliis Democratic challenger 34 Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Maryland Congressional District: 3 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Benjamin L. Cardin Democratic incumbent 36 Patrick L. McDonough Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Maryland Congressional District: 4 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Albert R. Wynn Democratic incumbent 36 John B. Kimble Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Maryland Congressional District: 5 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Steny H. Hoyer Democratic incumbent 36 John S. Morgan Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Maryland Congressional District: 6 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Stephen Crawford Democratic challenger 34 Roscoe G. Bartlett Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Maryland Congressional District: 7 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Elijah E. Cummings Democratic candidate 32 Kenneth Kondner Republican candidate 41 Kweisi Mfume Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Maryland Congressional District: 8 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Donald Mooers Democratic challenger 34 Constance A. Morella Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Massachusetts Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 John Kerry Democratic incumbent 16 William F. Weld Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 John W. Olver Democratic incumbent 36 Jane Swift Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Massachusetts Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 John Kerry Democratic incumbent 16 William F. Weld Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Richard E. Neal Democratic incumbent 36 Mark Steele Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Massachusetts Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 John Kerry Democratic incumbent 16 William F. Weld Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Jim McGovern Democratic challenger 34 Peter I. Blute Republican incumbent ---------------------------------------------------- State: Massachusetts Congressional District: 6 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 John Kerry Democratic incumbent 16 William F. Weld Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 John Tierney Democratic challenger 34 Peter G. Torkildsen Republican incumbent --------------------------------------------------- State: Massachusetts Congressional District: 8 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 John Kerry Democratic incumbent 16 William F. Weld Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Joseph P. Kennedy II Democratic incumbent 36 R. Philip Hyde Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Massachusetts Congressional District: 9 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 John Kerry Democratic incumbent 16 William F. Weld Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Joe Moakley Democratic incumbent 36 Paul Gryska Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Massachusetts Congressional District: 10 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 John Kerry Democratic incumbent 16 William F. Weld Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Phil Johnston Democratic candidate 32 Edward Teague Republican candidate 41 Gerry E. Studds Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Dan Kruszynski Democratic challenger 34 Peter Hoekstra Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Betsy J. Flory Democratic challenger 34 Vernon J. Ehlers Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Lisa A. Donaldson Democratic challenger 34 Dave Camp Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 5 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 James A. Barcia Democratic incumbent 36 Lawrence H. Sims Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 7 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Kim H. Tunnicliff Democratic challenger 34 Nick Smith Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 9 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Dale E. Kildee Democratic incumbent 36 Patrick M. Nowak Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 10 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 David E. Bonior Democratic incumbent 36 Susy Heintz Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 11 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Morris Frumin Democratic challenger 34 Joe Knollenberg Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 12 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Sander Levin Democratic incumbent 36 John Pappageorge Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 14 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 John Conyers Jr. Democratic incumbent 36 William A. Ashe Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 15 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Carolyn Kilpatrick Democratic candidate 32 Stephen Hume Republican candidate 41 Barbara-Rose Collins Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Michigan Congressional District: 16 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Carl Levin Democratic incumbent 16 Ronna Romney Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 John D. Dingell Democratic incumbent 36 James R. Desana Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Minnesota Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Paul Wellstone Democratic incumbent 16 Rudy Boschwitz Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Mary Rieder Democratic challenger 34 Gil Gutknecht Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Minnesota Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Paul Wellstone Democratic incumbent 16 Rudy Boschwitz Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 David Minge Democratic incumbent 36 Gary B. Revier Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Minnesota Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Paul Wellstone Democratic incumbent 16 Rudy Boschwitz Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Bruce F. Vento Democratic incumbent 36 Dennis Newinski Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Minnesota Congressional District: 5 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Paul Wellstone Democratic incumbent 16 Rudy Boschwitz Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Martin Olav Sabo Democratic incumbent 36 Jack Uldrich Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Minnesota Congressional District: 6 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Paul Wellstone Democratic incumbent 16 Rudy Boschwitz Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 William P. Luther Democratic incumbent 36 Tad Jude Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Mississippi Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 James W. (Bootie) Hunt Democratic challenger 14 Thad Cochran Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 John Arthur Eaves Jr. Democratic candidate 32 Charles W. Pickering Jr Republican candidate 41 G.V. Sonny Montgomery Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Missouri Congressional District: 1 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 William L. Clay Democratic incumbent 36 Daniel O'Sullivan Jr. Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Missouri Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Joan Kelly Horn Democratic challenger 34 James M. Talent Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Missouri Congressional District: 3 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Richard A. Gephardt Democratic incumbent 36 Deborah Lynn Wheelehan Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Missouri Congressional District: 4 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Ike Skelton Democratic incumbent 36 Bill Phelps Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Missouri Congressional District: 5 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Karen McCarthy Democratic incumbent 36 Allen Hutchinson Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Missouri Congressional District: 6 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Pat Danner Democratic incumbent 36 Jeff Bailey Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Missouri Congressional District: 7 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Ruth Bamberger Democratic candidate 32 Roy Blunt Republican candidate 42 Mel Hancock Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Missouri Congressional District: 9 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Harold L. Volkmer Democratic incumbent 36 Kenny Hulshof Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Nebraska Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Ben Nelson Democratic candidate 12 Chuck Hagel Republican candidate 21 James Exon Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Patrick J. Combs Democratic challenger 34 Doug Bereuter Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Nebraska Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Ben Nelson Democratic candidate 12 Chuck Hagel Republican candidate 21 James Exon Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 James Martin Davis Democratic challenger 34 Jon Christensen Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Nevada Congressional District: 1 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Bob Coffin Democratic challenger 34 John Eric Ensign Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New Hampshire Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Dick Swett Democratic challenger 14 Robert C. Smith Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Joe Keefe Democratic candidate 32 John E. Sununu Republican candidate 42 Bill Zeliff Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: New Hampshire Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Dick Swett Democratic challenger 14 Robert C. Smith Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Deborah (Arnie) Arensen Democratic challenger 34 Charles Bass Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New Jersey Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Robert G. Torricelli Democratic candidate 12 Dick Zimmer Republican candidate 21 Bill Bradley Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Robert E. Andrews Democratic incumbent 36 Sophia A. Nelson Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New Jersey Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Robert G. Torricelli Democratic candidate 12 Dick Zimmer Republican candidate 21 Bill Bradley Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Ruth Katz Democratic challenger 34 Frank A. LoBiondo Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New Jersey Congressional District: 7 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Robert G. Torricelli Democratic candidate 12 Dick Zimmer Republican candidate 21 Bill Bradley Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Larry Lerner Democratic challenger 34 Bob Franks Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New Jersey Congressional District: 9 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Robert G. Torricelli Democratic candidate 12 Dick Zimmer Republican candidate 21 Bill Bradley Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Steven R. Rothman Democratic candidate 32 Kathleen A. Donovan Republican candidate 41 Robert G. Torricelli Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: New Jersey Congressional District: 10 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Robert G. Torricelli Democratic candidate 12 Dick Zimmer Republican candidate 21 Bill Bradley Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Donald M. Payne Democratic incumbent 36 Vanessa Williams Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New Jersey Congressional District: 11 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Robert G. Torricelli Democratic candidate 12 Dick Zimmer Republican candidate 21 Bill Bradley Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Chris Evangel Democratic challenger 34 Rodney Frelinghuysen Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New Jersey Congressional District: 12 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Robert G. Torricelli Democratic candidate 12 Dick Zimmer Republican candidate 21 Bill Bradley Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 David N. Del Vecchio Democratic candidate 32 Mike Pappas Republican candidate 42 Dick Zimmer Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: New Jersey Congressional District: 13 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Robert G. Torricelli Democratic candidate 12 Dick Zimmer Republican candidate 21 Bill Bradley Democrat -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Robert Menendez Democratic incumbent 36 Carlos E. Munoz Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New Mexico Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Art Trujillo Democratic challenger 14 Pete V. Domenici Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Bill Richardson Democratic incumbent 36 Bill Redmond Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 1 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Nora Bredes Democratic challenger 34 Michael P. Forbes Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Kenneth J. Herman Democratic challenger 34 Rick A. Lazio Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 4 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Carolyn McCarthy Democratic challenger 34 Daniel Frisa Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 6 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Floyd H. Flake Democratic incumbent 36 Jorawar Misir Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 7 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Thomas J. Manton Democratic incumbent 36 Rose Birtley Republican challenger ---------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 8 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Jerrold Nadler Democratic incumbent 36 Michael Benjamin Republican challenger ---------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 10 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Edolphus Towns Democratic incumbent 36 Ameila Smith Parker Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 11 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Major R. Owens Democratic incumbent 36 Claudette Hayle Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 12 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Nydia M. Velazquez Democratic incumbent 36 Miguel I. Prado Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 13 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Tyrone G. Butler Democratic challenger 34 Susan Molinari Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 14 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Carolyn B. Maloney Democratic incumbent 36 Jeffrey E. Livingston Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 16 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Jose E. Serrano Democratic incumbent 36 Rodney Torres Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 17 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Eliot L. Engel Democratic incumbent 36 Denis McCarthy Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 18 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Nita M. Lowey Democratic incumbent 36 Kerry J. Katsorhis Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 19 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Richard S. Klein Democratic challenger 34 Sue W. Kelly Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 25 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Marty Mack Democratic challenger 34 James T. Walsh Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 27 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Thomas M. Fricano Democratic challenger 34 Bill Paxon Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 29 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 John J. LaFalce Democratic incumbent 36 David B. Callard Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 30 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Francis Pordum Democratic challenger 34 Jack Quinn Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: New York Congressional District: 31 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Bruce D. MacBain Democratic challenger 34 Amo Houghton Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: North Carolina Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Harvey B. Gantt Democratic challenger 14 Jesse Helms Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Bob Etheridge Democratic challenger 34 David Funderburk Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: North Carolina Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Harvey B. Gantt Democratic challenger 14 Jesse Helms Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 David E. Price Democratic challenger 34 Fred Heineman Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: North Carolina Congressional District: 7 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Harvey B. Gantt Democratic challenger 14 Jesse Helms Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Mike McIntyre Democratic candidate 32 Bill Caster Republican candidate 41 Charile Rose Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: North Carolina Congressional District: 8 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Harvey B. Gantt Democratic challenger 14 Jesse Helms Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 W.G. (Bill) Hefner Democratic incumbent 36 Curtis Blackwood Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Ohio Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Thomas R. Chandler Democratic challenger 34 Rob Portman Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Ohio Congressional District: 3 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Tony P. Hall Democratic incumbent 36 David A. Westbrock Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Ohio Congressional District: 7 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Richard K. Blain Democratic challenger 34 David L. Hobson Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Ohio Congressional District: 8 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Jeffrey D. Kitchen Democratic challenger 34 John A. Boehner Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Ohio Congressional District: 10 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Dennis J. Kucinich Democratic challenger 34 Martin R. Hoke Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Ohio Congressional District: 17 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 James A. Traficant Democratic incumbent 36 Thomas P. McCabe Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Ohio Congressional District: 18 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Robert L. Burch Democratic challenger 34 Bob Ney Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Ohio Congressional District: 19 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Thomas J. Coyne Jr. Democratic challenger 34 Steven C. LaTourette Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Oklahoma Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Jim Boren Democratic challenger 14 James M. Inhofe Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Randolph Amen Democratic challenger 34 Steve Largent Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Oklahoma Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Jim Boren Democratic challenger 14 James M. Inhofe Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Glen D. Johnson Democratic incumbent 36 Tom Coburn Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Oklahoma Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Jim Boren Democratic challenger 14 James M. Inhofe Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Ed Crocker Democratic challenger 34 J.C. Watts Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Oregon Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Tom Bruggere Democratic candidate 12 Gordon Smith Republican candidate 22 Mark Hatfield Republican -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Mike Dugan Democratic challenger 34 Wes Cooley Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Oregon Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Tom Bruggere Democratic candidate 12 Gordon Smith Republican candidate 22 Mark Hatfield Republican -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Peter A. DeFazio Democratic incumbent 36 John D. Newkirk Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Pennsylvania Congressional District: 1 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Thomas M. Foglietta Democratic incumbent 36 James D. Cella Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Pennsylvania Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Chaka Fattah Democratic incumbent 36 Larry G. Murphy Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Pennsylvania Congressional District: 5 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Ruth C. Rudy Democratic candidate 32 John E. Peterson Republican candidate 42 William F. Clinger Jr. Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Pennsylvania Congressional District: 7 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 John Innelli Democratic challenger 34 Curt Weldon Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Pennsylvania Congressional District: 8 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 John P. Murray Democratic challenger 34 James C. Greenwood Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Pennsylvania Congressional District: 11 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Paul E. Kanjorski Democratic incumbent 36 Stephen A. Urban Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Pennsylvania Congressional District: 12 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 John P. Murtha Democratic incumbent 36 Bill Choby Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Pennsylvania Congressional District: 13 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Joseph M. Hoeffel Democratic challenger 34 Jon D. Fox Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Pennsylvania Congressional District: 14 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 William J. Coyne Democratic incumbent 36 Bill Ravotti Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Pennsylvania Congressional District: 17 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Paul Kettl Democratic challenger 34 George W. Gekas Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Pennsylvania Congressional District: 18 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Mike Doyle Democratic incumbent 36 David B. Fawcett Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: South Carolina Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Elliot Springs Close Democratic challenger 14 Strom Thurmond Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 34 Floyd D. Spence Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: South Dakota Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Tim Johnson Democratic challenger 14 Larry Pressler Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Rick Weiland Democratic candidate 32 John R. Thune Republican candidate 41 Tim Johnson Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Tennessee Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 J. Houston Gordon Democratic challenger 14 Fred Thompson Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Stephen Smith Democratic challenger 34 John J. Duncan Jr. Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Tennessee Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 J. Houston Gordon Democratic challenger 14 Fred Thompson Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Charles (Chuck) Jolly Democratic challenger 34 Zach Wamp Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Tennessee Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 J. Houston Gordon Democratic challenger 14 Fred Thompson Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Mark Stewart Democratic challenger 34 William Van Hilleary Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Tennessee Congressional District: 5 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 J. Houston Gordon Democratic challenger 14 Fred Thompson Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Bob Clement Democratic incumbent 36 Steven L. Edmondson Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Jim Turner Democratic candidate 32 Brian Babin Republican candidate 41 Charles Wilson Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Lee Cole Democratic challenger 34 Sam Johnson Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 6 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Janet Carroll RichardsonDemocratic challenger 34 Joe L. Barton Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 7 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Al Siegmund Democratic challenger 34 Bill Archer Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 8 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 C.J. Newman Democratic candidate 32 Kevin Brady Republican candidate 42 Jack Fields Jr. Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 9 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Nick Lampson Democratic challenger 34 Steve Stockman Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 11 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Chet Edwards Democratic incumbent 36 Jay Mathis Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 12 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Hugh Parmer Democratic candidate 32 Kay Granger Republican candidate 41 Pete Green Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 13 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Samuel Brown Silverman Democratic challenger 34 William (Mac) ThornberryRepublican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 14 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Charles 'Lefty' Morris Democratic candidate 32 Ron Paul Republican candidate 42 Greg Laughlin Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 15 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Ruben Hinojosa Democratic candidate 32 Tom Haughey Republican candidate 41 E (Kika) de la Garza Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 18 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Sheila Jackson Lee Democratic incumbent 36 Larry White Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 21 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Gordon H. Wharton Democratic challenger 34 Lamar Smith Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 22 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Scott Douglas CunninghamDemocratic challenger 34 Tom DeLay Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 25 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Ken Bentsen Democratic incumbent 36 Brent Perry Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 26 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Jerry Frankel Democratic challenger 34 Dick Armey Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 28 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Frank Tejeda Democratic incumbent 36 Mark Lynn Cude Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Texas Congressional District: 29 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Victor M. Morales Democratic challenger 14 Phil Gramm Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Gene Green Democratic incumbent 36 Jack Rodriguez Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Utah Congressional District: 1 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Gregory J. Sanders Democratic challenger 34 James V. Hansen Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Utah Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Ross C. Anderson Democratic candidate 32 Merrill Cook Republican candidate 42 Enid Greene Republican -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Utah Congressional District: 3 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Bill Orton Democratic incumbent 36 Christopher B. Cannon Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Virginia Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Mark Warner Democratic challenger 14 John W. Warner Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Russell Axsom Democratic challenger 34 Herbert H. Bateman Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Virginia Congressional District: 2 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Mark Warner Democratic challenger 14 John W. Warner Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Owen B. Pickett Democratic incumbent 36 John Tate Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Virginia Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Mark Warner Democratic challenger 14 John W. Warner Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Robert C. Scott Democratic incumbent 36 Elsie Holland Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Virginia Congressional District: 4 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Mark Warner Democratic challenger 14 John W. Warner Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Norman Sisisky Democratic incumbent 36 A.J. (Tony) Zevgolis Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Virginia Congressional District: 5 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Mark Warner Democratic challenger 14 John W. Warner Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 31 Virgil Goode Democratic candidate 32 George C. Landrith III Republican candidate 41 Lewis F. Payne Democrat -- retiring ----------------------------------------------------- State: Virginia Congressional District: 6 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Mark Warner Democratic challenger 14 John W. Warner Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Jeffrey Grey Democratic challenger 34 Robert W. Goodlatte Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Virginia Congressional District: 7 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Mark Warner Democratic challenger 14 John W. Warner Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Roderic H. Slayton Democratic challenger 34 Thomas J. Bliley Jr. Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Virginia Congressional District: 8 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Mark Warner Democratic challenger 14 John W. Warner Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 James P. Moran Democratic incumbent 36 John Otey Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Virginia Congressional District: 9 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Mark Warner Democratic challenger 14 John W. Warner Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Rick Boucher Democratic incumbent 36 Patrick Muldoon Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Virginia Congressional District: 10 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Mark Warner Democratic challenger 14 John W. Warner Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Robert L. Weinberg Democratic challenger 34 Frank R. Wolf Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Virginia Congressional District: 11 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 15 Mark Warner Democratic challenger 14 John W. Warner Republican incumbent (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Tom Horton Democratic challenger 34 Thomas M. Davis III Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Washington Congressional District: 1 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Jeff Coopersmith Democratic challenger 34 Rick White Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Washington Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Kevin Quigley Democratic challenger 34 Jack Metcalf Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Washington Congressional District: 6 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Norm Dicks Democratic incumbent 36 Bill Tinsley Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Washington Congressional District: 7 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Jim McDermott Democratic incumbent 36 Frank Kleschen Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Washington Congressional District: 8 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Dave Little Democratic challenger 34 Jennifer Dunn Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Washington Congressional District: 9 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Adam Smith Democratic challenger 34 Randy Tate Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: West Virginia Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Jay Rockefeller Democratic incumbent 16 Betty A. Burks Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Alan B. Mollohan Democratic incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: West Virginia Congressional District: 3 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 13 Jay Rockefeller Democratic incumbent 16 Betty A. Burks Republican challenger (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Nick J. Rahall II Democratic incumbent 36 Sharon Lord Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Wisconsin Congressional District: 2 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Paul R. Soglin Democratic challenger 34 Scott L. Klug Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Wisconsin Congressional District: 4 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Gerald D. Kleczka Democratic incumbent 36 Tom Reynolds Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Wisconsin Congressional District: 5 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 33 Thomas M. Barrett Democratic incumbent 36 Paul D. Melotik Republican challenger ----------------------------------------------------- State: Wisconsin Congressional District: 9 (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Floyd Brenholt Democratic challenger 34 F. James Sensenbrenner Republican incumbent ----------------------------------------------------- State: Wyoming Congressional District: 1 (A) Names for U.S. Senate: 11 Kathy Karpan Democratic candidate 12 Michael B. Enzi Republican candidate 22 Alan Simpson Republican -- retiring (B) Names for U.S. House of Representatives: 35 Pete Maxfield Democratic challenger 34 Barbara L. Cubin Republican incumbent BALLOT CARD For the November 1996 General Election ====================================== State: New Jersey Congressional District: 01 Democratic Republican Party Party ---------- ---------- CANDIDATES FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Robert E. Andrews Sophia A. Nelson CANDIDATES FOR THE U.S. SENATE: Robert G. Torricelli Dick Zimmer BALLOT CARD For the November 1996 General Election ====================================== State: Kansas Congressional District: 01 Democratic Republican Party Party ---------- ---------- CANDIDATES FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: John Divine Jerry Moran CANDIDATES FOR THE U.S. SENATE: Sally Thompson Pat Roberts CANDIDATES FOR THE U.S. SENATE: Jill Docking Sam Brownback BALLOT CARD For the November 1996 General Election ====================================== State: New York Congressional District: 01 Democratic Republican Party Party ---------- ---------- CANDIDATES FOR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Nora Bredes Michael P. Forbes >> MASTER CODE CANDIDATE SUPPORT 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 >> MASTER CODE 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 urbanized 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, boroughs, 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). >> MASTER CODE CENSUS OCCUPATION CODES 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, ARC 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, Commodities 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 WORKERS (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 Agricultural 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 agricultural 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) ------------------------------------------------------------ -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 TAILORS (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) 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) >> MASTER CODE CENSUS INDUSTRY CODES 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) 241 MISCELLANEOUS WOOD PRODUCTS (244, 249) 242 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES (25) DURABLE GOODS: STONE, CLAY, GLASS AND CONCRETE PRODUCTS 250 GLASS AND GLASS PRODUCTS (321-323) 251 CEMENT, CONCRETE, GYPSUM, AND PLASTER PRODUCTS (324, 327) 252 STRUCTURAL CLAY PRODUCTS (325) 261 POTTERY AND RELATED PRODUCTS (326) 262 MISCELLANEOUS NONMETALLIC MINERAL AND STONE PRODUCTS (328, 329) DURABLE GOODS: METAL INDUSTRIES 270 BLAST FURNACES, STEELWORKS, ROLLING AND FINISHING MILLS (331) 271 IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES (332) 272 PRIMARY ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES (3334, PT 334, 3353-3355, 3361) 280 OTHER PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES (3331-3333, 3339, PT 334, 3351, 3356, 3357, 3362, 3369, 339) 281 CUTLERY, HAND TOOLS, AND OTHER HARDWARE (342) 282 FABRICATED STRUCTURAL METAL PRODUCTS (344) 290 SCREW MACHINE PRODUCTS (345) 291 METAL FORGINGS AND STAMPINGS (346) 292 ORDNANCE (348) 300 MISCELLANEOUS FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS (341, 343, 347, 349) 301 NOT SPECIFIED METAL INDUSTRIES DURABLE GOODS: MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL 310 ENGINES AND TURBINES (351) 311 FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT (352) 312 CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIAL HANDLING MACHINES (353) 320 METALWORKING MACHINERY (354) 321 OFFICE AND ACCOUNTING MACHINES (357, EXCEPT 3573) 322 ELECTRONIC COMPUTING EQUIPMENT (3573) 331 MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL, N.E.C. (355, 356, 358, 359) 332 NOT SPECIFIED MACHINERY DURABLE GOODS: ELECTRICAL MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES 340 HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES (363) 341 RADIO, TV, AND COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT (365, 366) 342 ELECTRICAL MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES, N.E.C. (361, 362, 364, 367, 369) 350 NOT SPECIFIED ELECTRICAL MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES MANUFACTURING (cont.) DURABLE GOODS: TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT 351 MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT (371) 352 AIRCRAFT AND PARTS (372) 360 SHIP AND BOAT BUILDING AND REPAIRING (373) 361 RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES AND EQUIPMENT (374) 362 GUIDED MISSILES, SPACE VEHICLES, AND OTHER PARTS (376) 370 CYCLES AND MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT (375, 379) DURABLE GOODS: PROFESSIONAL AND PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT, AND WATCHES 371 SCIENTIFIC AND CONTROLLING INSTRUMENTS (381, 382) 372 OPTICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES SUPPLIES (383, 384, 385) 380 PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES (386) 381 WATCHES, CLOCKS, AND CLOCKWORK OPERATED DEVICES (387) 382 NOT SPECIFIED PROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT 390 TOYS, AMUSEMENT, AND SPORTING GOODS (394) 391 MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES (39 EXC.394) 392 NOT SPECIFIED MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES TRANSPORTATION 400 RAILROADS (40) 401 BUS SERVICE AND URBAN TRANSIT (41, EXCEPT 412) 402 TAXICAB SERVICE (412) 410 TRUCKING SERVICE (421, 423) 411 WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE (422) 412 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (43) 420 WATER TRANSPORTATION (44) 421 AIR TRANSPORTATION (45) 422 PIPE LINES, EXCEPT NATURAL GAS (46) 432 SERVICES INCIDENTAL TO TRANSPORTATION (47) COMMUNICATIONS 440 RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING (483) 441 TELEPHONE (WIRE AND RADIO) (481) 442 TELEGRAPH AND MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION SERVICES (482, 489) UTILITIES AND SANITARY SERVICES 460 ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER (491) 461 GAS AND STEAM SUPPLY SYSTEMS (492, 496) 462 ELECTRIC AND GAS, AND OTHER COMBINATIONS (493) 470 WATER SUPPLY AND IRRIGATION (494, 497) 471 SANITARY SERVICES (495) 472 NOT SPECIFIED UTILITIES WHOLESALE TRADE DURABLE GOODS 500 MOTOR VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT (501) 501 FURNITURE AND HOME FURNISHINGS (502) 502 LUMBER AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS (503) 510 SPORTING GOODS, TOYS AND HOBBY GOODS (504) 511 METALS AND MINERALS, EXCEPT PETROLEUM (505) 512 ELECTRICAL GOODS (506) 521 HARDWARE, PLUMBING AND HEATING SUPPLIES (507) 522 NOT SPECIFIED ELECTRICAL AND HARDWARE PRODUCTS 530 MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES (508) 531 SCRAP AND WASTE MATERIALS (5093) 532 MISCELLANEOUS WHOLESALE, DURABLE GOODS (5094, 5099) NONDURABLE GOODS 540 PAPER AND PAPER PRODUCTS (511) 541 DRUGS, CHEMICALS, AND ALLIED PRODUCTS (512, 516) 542 APPAREL, FABRICS, AND NOTIONS (513) 550 GROCERIES AND RELATED PRODUCTS (514) 551 FARM PRODUCTS-RAW MATERIALS (515) 552 PETROLEUM PRODUCTS (517) 560 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (518) 561 FARM SUPPLIES (5191) 562 MISCELLANEOUS WHOLESALE, NONDURABLE GOODS (5194, 5198, 5199) 571 NOT SPECIFIED WHOLESALE TRADE RETAIL TRADE 580 LUMBER AND BUILDING MATERIAL RETAILING (521, 523) 581 HARDWARE STORES (525) 582 RETAIL NURSERIES AND GARDEN STORES (526) 590 MOBILE HOME DEALERS (527) 591 DEPARTMENT STORES (531) 592 VARIETY STORES (533) 600 MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORES (539) 601 GROCERY STORES (541) 602 DAIRY PRODUCTS STORES (545) 610 RETAIL BAKERIES (546) 611 FOOD STORES, N.E.C. (542, 543, 544, 549) 612 MOTOR VEHICLES DEALERS (551, 552) 620 AUTO AND HOME SUPPLY STORES (553) 621 GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS (554) 622 MISCELLANEOUS VEHICLE DEALERS (555, 556, 557, 559) 630 APPAREL AND ACCESSORY STORES, EXCEPT SHOE (56, EXCEPT 566) 631 SHOE STORES (566) 632 FURNITURE AND HOME FURNISHINGS STORES (571) 640 HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES, TV, AND RADIO STORES (572, 573) 641 EATING AND DRINKING PLACES (58) 642 DRUG STORES (591) 650 LIQUOR STORES (592) 651 SPORTING GOODS, BICYCLES, AND HOBBY STORES (5941, 5945, 5946) 652 BOOK AND STATIONERY STORES (5942, 5943) 660 JEWELRY STORES (5944) 661 SEWING, NEEDLEWORK, AND PIECE GOODS STORES (5949) 662 MAIL ORDER HOUSES (5961) 670 VENDING MACHINE OPERATORS (5962) 671 DIRECT SELLING ESTABLISHMENTS (5963) 672 FUEL AND ICE DEALERS (598) 681 RETAIL FLORISTS (5992) 682 MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL STORES (593, 5947, 5948, 5993, 5994, 5999) 691 NOT SPECIFIED RETAIL TRADE FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAL ESTATE 700 BANKING (60) 701 SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS (612) 702 CREDIT AGENCIES, N.E.C. (61, EXCEPT 612) 710 SECURITY, COMMODITY BROKERAGE, AND INVESTMENT COMPANIES (62, 67) 711 INSURANCE (63, 64) 712 REAL ESTATE, INCLUDING REAL ESTATE-INSURANCE-LAW OFFICES (65, 66) BUSINESS AND REPAIR SERVICES 721 ADVERTISING (731) 722 SERVICES TO DWELLINGS AND OTHER BUILDINGS (734) 730 COMMERCIAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND TESTING LABS (7391, 7397) 731 PERSONNEL SUPPLY SERVICES (736) 732 BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING SERVICES (7392) 740 COMPUTER AND DATA PROCESSING SERVICES (737) 741 DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES (7393) 742 BUSINESS SERVICES, N.E.C. (732, 733, 735, 7394, 7395, 7396, 7399) 750 AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, EXCEPT REPAIR (751, 752, 754) 751 AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOPS (753) 752 ELECTRICAL REPAIR SHOPS (762, 7694) 760 MISCELLANEOUS REPAIR SERVICES (763, 764, 7692, 7699) PERSONAL SERVICES 761 PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS (88) 762 HOTELS AND MOTELS (701) 770 LODGING PLACES, EXCEPT HOTELS AND MOTELS(702, 703, 704) 771 LAUNDRY, CLEANING, AND GARMENT SERVICES (721) 772 BEAUTY SHOPS (723) 780 BARBER SHOPS (724) 781 FUNERAL SERVICE AND CREMATORIES (726) 782 SHOE REPAIR SHOPS (725) 790 DRESSMAKING SHOPS (PT 729) 791 MISCELLANEOUS PERSONAL SERVICES (722, PT 729) ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION SERVICE 800 THEATERS AND MOTION PICTURES (78, 792) 801 BOWLING ALLEYS, BILLIARD AND POOL PARLORS (793) 802 MISCELLANEOUS ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES (791, 794, 799) PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED SERVICES 812 OFFICES OF PHYSICIANS (801, 803) 820 OFFICES OF DENTISTS (802) 821 OFFICES OF CHIROPRACTORS (8041) 822 OFFICES OF OPTOMETRISTS (8042) 830 OFFICES OF HEALTH PRACTITIONERS, N.E.C. (8049) 831 HOSPITALS (806) 832 NURSING AND PERSONAL CARE FACILITIES (805) 840 HEALTH SERVICES, N.E.C. (807, 808, 809) 841 LEGAL SERVICES (81) 842 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS (821) 850 COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (822) 851 BUSINESS, TRADE AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS (824) 852 LIBRARIES (823) 860 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, N.E.C (829) 861 JOB TRAINING AND VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES (833) 862 CHILD DAY CARE SERVICES (835) 870 RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES, WITHOUT NURSING (836) 871 SOCIAL SERVICES, N.E.C. (832, 839) 872 MUSEUMS, ART GALLERIES, AND ZOOS (84) 880 RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS (866) 881 MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS (861-865, 869) 882 ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURAL, AND SURVEYING SERVICES (891) 890 ACCOUNTING, AUDITING, AND BOOKKEEPING SERVICES (893) 891 NONCOMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (892) 892 MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED SERVICES (899) PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 900 EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE OFFICES (911-913) 901 GENERAL GOVERNMENT, N.E.C (919) 910 JUSTICE, PUBLIC ORDER, AND SAFETY (92) 921 PUBLIC FINANCE, TAXATION, AND MONETARY POLICY (93) 922 ADMINISTRATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMS (94) 930 ADMINISTRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND HOUSING PROGRAMS (95) 931 ADMINISTRATION OF ECONOMIC PROGRAMS (96) 932 NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (97) 990 INDUSTRY NOT REPORTED >> MASTER CODE ICPSR STATE AND COUNTRY CODES UNITED STATES: New England 101 Connecticut 102 Maine 103 Massachusetts 104 New Hampshire 105 Rhode Island 106 Vermont 109 General mention of area; two or more states in area Middle Atlantic 111 Delaware 112 New Jersey 113 New York 114 Pennsylvania 118 General mention of area; two or more states in area -------------------- 119 EAST; MENTION OF STATES IN BOTH NEW ENGLAND AND MIDDLE ATLANTIC East North Central 121 Illinois 122 Indiana 123 Michigan 124 Ohio 125 Wisconsin 129 General mention of area; two or more states in area West North Central 131 Iowa 132 Kansas 133 Minnesota 134 Missouri 135 Nebraska 136 North Dakota 137 South Dakota 138 General mention of area; two or more states in area -------------------- 139 MIDWEST; MENTION OF STATES IN BOTH EAST NORTH CENTRAL AND WEST North Central Solid South 141 Alabama 142 Arkansas 143 Florida 144 Georgia 145 Louisiana 146 Mississippi 147 North Carolina 148 South Carolina 149 Texas 140 Virginia 157 General mention of area; the South; two or more states in area Border States 151 Kentucky 152 Maryland 153 Oklahoma 154 Tennessee 155 Washington, D.C. 156 West Virginia 158 General mention of area; two or more states in area -------------------- 159 SOUTH; MENTION OF STATES IN BOTH SOLID SOUTH AND BORDER STATES Mountain States 161 Arizona 162 Colorado 163 Idaho 164 Montana 165 Nevada 166 New Mexico 167 Utah 168 Wyoming 169 General mention of area; two or more states in area Pacific States 171 California 172 Oregon 173 Washington 178 General mention of area; two or more states in area --------------------- 179 WEST; MENTION OF STATES IN BOTH MOUNTAIN STATES AND PACIFIC STATES External States and Territories 180 Alaska 181 Hawaii 182 Puerto Rico 183 American Samoa, Guam 184 Panama Canal Zone 185 Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands 186 Virgin Islands 187 Other U.S. Dependencies Reference to Two or More States from Different Regions of the United States; or NA Which State 191 Northeast and South (New England or Middle Atlantic and Solid South or Border States) 192 Northeast and Midwest (New England or Middle Atlantic and East North Central or West North Central) 194 West (Mountain States or Pacific States) and Midwest; West and Northeast 195 West and South (Solid South or Border States) 196 Midwest and South -------------------- 198 Lived in 3 or more regions (NA whether lived in one more than the rest) 199 United States, NA which state WESTERN HEMISPHERE Except U.S. North America 201 North America (except U.S.) comb. Canada, Mexico, and/or Central America 207 Canada -- ancestry of Anglo-Saxon origin 208 Canada -- ancestry of French origin 209 Canada -- NA origin or other origin 219 Mexico 229 Central America West Indies (except Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands) 231 Barbados 232 Cuba 233 Dominican Republic 234 Haiti 235 Jamaica 236 Netherlands Antilles 237 Trinidad and Tobago 238 Islands of Lesser Antilles--except Virgin Islands and Netherlands Antilles 239 West Indies (except Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands) or "Caribbean"--reference to two or more West Indian countries South America 259 South America; South American country or countries EUROPE British Isles 301 England 302 Ireland (NA North or South); southern Ireland 303 Scotland 304 Wales 305 Northern Ireland (Ulster) 306 Scot-Irish 308 United Kingdom; Great Britain 309 "BRITISH ISLES"; GENERAL MENTION OF AREA; REFERENCE TO TWO OR MORE COUNTRIES OF THE BRITISH ISLES Western Europe 310 Austria 311 Belgium 312 France 313 Federal Republic of Germany (W. Germany) 314 German Democratic Republic (E. Germany) 315 Germany--NA East or West 316 Luxembourg 317 Netherlands; Holland 318 Switzerland 319 "WESTERN EUROPE"; GENERAL MENTION OF AREA; REFERENCE TO TWO OR MORE COUNTRIES OF WESTERN EUROPE 320 Scandinavia 321 Denmark 322 Finland 323 Norway 324 Sweden 325 Iceland -------------------- 328 GENERAL MENTION OF AREA OF WESTERN EUROPE AND/OR SCANDINAVIA AND/OR BRITISH ISLES AND/OR MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES AND/OR GREECE; REFERENCE TO TWO OR MORE COUNTRIES IN DIFFERENT AREAS LISTED ABOVE -------------------- 329 "SCANDINAVIA"; GENERAL MENTION OF AREA; REFERENCE TO TWO OR MORE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES Eastern Europe 331 Czechoslovakia (Slavic) 332 Estonia 333 Hungary 334 Latvia 335 Lithuania 336 Poland 337 Russia (or U.S.S.R.) 338 Ukraine 339 "EASTERN EUROPE"; GENERAL MENTION OF AREA; REFERENCE TO TWO OR MORE COUNTRIES OF EASTERN EUROPE Balkan Countries 341 Albania 342 Bulgaria 343 Greece 344 Rumania 345 Yugoslavia 348 General mention of area; reference to two or more Balkan Countries -------------------- 349 "BALKANS"; GENERAL REFERENCE OF AREA; REFERENCE TO COUNTRIES IN EASTERN EUROPE AND BALKAN COUNTRIES Mediterranean Countries 351 Italy 352 Portugal 353 Spain 354 Malta or Gozo -------------------- 399 "EUROPE"; GENERAL MENTION OF AREA; REFERENCE TO TWO OR MORE COUNTRIES OF EUROPE IN DIFFERENT AREAS ASIA except Near East 401 Afghanistan 404 India 405 1990: Pakistan 406 Pakistan 428 Southeast Asia: Indochina, Thailand, Malaya, Burma, Philippines, Indonesia; Hong Kong 431 China (mainland) 432 1990: Taiwan, Formosa 434 Taiwan, Formosa 451 Japan 452 Korea (North or South) 499 "ASIA"; GENERAL MENTION OF AREA; REFERENCE TO TWO OR MORE COUNTRIES OF ASIA NEAR EAST 501 U.A.R. (Egypt) 502 Iran 503 Iraq 504 Israel (or Palestine) 505 Jordan 506 Lebanon 507 Saudi Arabia 508 Syria 509 Turkey 599 "NEAR EAST"; "MIDDLE EAST"; GENERAL MENTION OF AREA; REFERENCE TO TWO OR MORE COUNTRIES OF NEAR EAST AFRICA 655 South Africa 699 Africa; any African country or countries, excluding only South Africa and U.A.R. (Egypt) OCEANIA 704 Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania OTHER: 997 Other (combinations) not codeable elsewhere 998 DK 999 NA >> MASTER CODE IMPORTANT PROBLEMS CODE SOCIAL WELFARE 001 General reference to domestic issues; repairing/maintaining the nation's infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams, etc) 005 POPULATION; any mention of population increase; reference to over-population/birth control 006 DAY CARE; child care 010 UNEMPLOYMENT; the number of people with jobs; unemployment rate/compensation; job retraining 013 CREATE JOBS/RECRUIT INDUSTRY in specific area/region/state 020 EDUCATION; financial assistance for schools/colleges/students; quality of education/the learning environment/teaching 030 AGED/ELDERLY; social security benefits; administration of social security; medical care for the aged; medicare benefits; insuring against catastrophic illness 035 Social Security won't be around in the future; paying into a system which won't benefit me/them 040 HEALTH PROBLEMS/COST OF MEDICAL CARE; quality of medical care; medical research/training of doctors and other health personnel; hospitals; National Health insurance program 045 ** Located after 330 046 ** Located after 383 048 Other specific references to health problems; AIDS 050 HOUSING; providing housing for the poor/homeless; ability of young people to afford to buy homes/find homes to buy 060 POVERTY; aid to the poor/underprivileged people; help for the (truly) needy; welfare programs (such as ADC); general reference to anti-poverty programs; hunger/help for hungry people in the U.S. 090 SOCIAL WELFARE PROBLEMS; "welfare"--NFS 091 For general or other social welfare programs; "we need to help people more" 092 Against general or other social welfare programs; "too many give away programs for the people who don't deserve it" 099 Other specific mentions of social welfare problems AGRICULTURE 100 FARM ECONOMICS; payment for crops/price of feed/cost of farming 103 SUBSIDIES/crop payments/government aid to farmers 120 WORLD FOOD PROBLEMS; food shortages/starvation/famine (not 406 or 407) NATURAL RESOURCES 150 CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; conservation, ecology; protecting the environment/endangered species 151 Controlling/REGULATING GROWTH or land development; banning further growth/development in crowded or ecologically sensitive areas; preserving natural areas 153 POLLUTION; clean air/water 154 Disposal of RADIOACTIVE/TOXIC waste (dumps, landfills) 160 DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES /ENERGY SOURCES; harbors, dams, canals, irrigation, flood control, navigation, reclamation; location, mining, stock-piling of minerals; water power, atomic power; development of alternative sources of energy (includes mentions of solar or nuclear power) Agriculture OR Natural Resources: 199 OTHER SPECIFIC MENTIONS OF AGRICULTURE OR NATURAL RESOURCES PROBLEMS LABOR: UNION-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS 200 LABOR/UNION PROBLEMS; union practices; job security provided workers; job safety issues; working conditions 220 Anti-union; unions too powerful 299 Other specific mention of labor or union-management problems RACIAL 300 CIVIL RIGHTS/RACIAL PROBLEMS; programs to enable Blacks to gain social/economic/educational/ political equality; relations between Blacks and whites 302 PROTECTION (expansion) OF WHITE MAJORITY; maintenance of segregation; right to choose own neighborhood; right to discriminate in employment 304 Discrimination against whites; preferred treatment given to minorities PUBLIC ORDER 320 NARCOTICS; availability of drugs; extent of drug/alcohol addiction in the U.S.; interdiction of drugs coming to the U.S. from foreign countries; alcohol or drug related crime 330 WOMEN'S RIGHTS; ref. to women's issues; economic equality for women; ERA 045 PRO-ABORTION; pro-choice; the right of a woman to control her body 340 CRIME/VIOLENCE; too much crime; streets aren't safe; mugging, murder, shoplifting; drug related crime 360 LAW AND ORDER; respect for the law/police; support for the police; death penalty; tougher sentences for criminals; need for more prisons 367 Against unregistered ownership of guns; legislative control of guns; "CONTROL OF GUNS"-NFS 368 For gun ownership; right to have guns; against gun control 370 EXTREMIST GROUPS/TERRORISTS; terrorist bombings/hostage-taking; political subversives; revolutionary ideas/approaches 380 General mention of MORAL/RELIGIOUS DECAY (of nation); sex, bad language, adult themes on TV 381 Family problems--divorce; proper treatment of children; decay of family (except 006); child/elder abuse (incl. sexual) 046 ANTI-ABORTION; pro-life; "abortion"--NFS 383 Problems of/with YOUNG PEOPLE; drug/alcohol abuse among young people; sexual attitudes; lack of values/discipline; mixed-up thinking; lack of goals/ambition/sense of responsibility 384 Religion (too) mixed up in politics; prayer in school 385 HOMOSEXUALITY; protecting civil rights of gays and lesbians; accepting the lifestyle of homosexuals; granting homosexual couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples Racial OR Public Order OR Other Domestic: 399 OTHER SPECIFIC MENTION OF RACIAL OR PUBLIC ORDER PROBLEMS; OTHER MENTION OF DOMESTIC ISSUES ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS If R mentions both "inflation" (400) and rise in prices of specific items (407- 409), code "inflation" (400). [SEE ALSO 496] 400 INFLATION; rate of inflation; level of prices; cost of living 401 WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS/GUIDELINES; freezing prices; control of business profits 403 High price of food, all mentions (exc. 100) 404 High price of other specific items and services 405 MINIMUM WAGE, any mention; any mention of wage levels 407 Food shortages; economic aspects of food shortages, e.g., price of sugar (other references, code 120) 408 Fuel shortages; "energy crisis"; oil companies making excessive profits; depressed condition of the oil industry 410 RECESSION, DEPRESSION; prosperity of the nation; economic growth; GNP 411 MONETARY RESTRAINTS/CONTROLS; level of interest rates; availability of money/the money supply 415 Against (increased) government spending; balancing of the (national) budget; against government stimulation of the economy; the size of the budget deficit 416 TAXES; general reference to tax structure; tax surcharge (NA R's direction); tax reform; other specific tax reference 417 For tax cuts; against tax surcharge; for tax reform 418 Against tax cuts; for tax surcharge; against tax reform 424 PRODUCTIVITY of American industry; "giving a day's work for a day's pay"; revitalizing American industry 425 STOCK MARKET/GOLD PRICES; all references to gold prices, stock brokers, stock fluctuations, etc. 427 VALUE OF THE DOLLAR; strength/weakness of the dollar against other currencies 433 Large businesses taking over small businesses 440 Class oriented economic concerns--middle class, working class (pro); MIDDLE CLASS GETTING SQUEEZED 441 Class oriented economic concerns--big business, monied interests (anti) too powerful 442 Concern for inequitable distribution of wealth; gap between the rich and the poor; concentration of wealth in the hands of a few 451 For the regulation of interstate commerce, transportation, air travel, railways, government auto safety regulations; in favor of increased government regulation of business; mention of problems caused by deregulation 452 Against (increased) regulation of interstate commerce, transportation; AIR TRAVEL, RAILWAYS, etc. 453 Solvency/stability/regulation/control of the nation's FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. [1990] Savings and Loan scandal 460 IMMIGRATION POLICY; establishing limits on how many people from any one nation can enter the U.S.; prohibiting specified types of persons from entering the U.S. 463 Problems relating to the influx of political/economic refugees (Cubans, Haitians, Mexicans, etc.) 491 Economics--general; "Economics"--NFS 492 International economics--general 493 U.S. foreign trade, balance of payments position; foreign oil dependency 494 Control of FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN U.S.; mention of foreigners buying U.S. assets (businesses, real estate, stocks, etc) 495 PROTECTION OF U.S. INDUSTRIES; imposition of tariffs/reciprocal restrictions on foreign imports; limitation of foreign imports; mention of problems in specific industries competing with foreign manufacturers 496 The economy--not further specified (code specific mention if R clarifies by saying "inflation", etc.; also see 400) 497 International competitiveness; outsourcing; loss of jobs to foreign competition; moving jobs abroad; modernizing plants/equipment/management techniques to meet foreign competition; matching the quality of foreign goods 498 Mention of "twin problems" of a large national debt/budget deficit and unfavorable balance of trade/import-export ratio 499 Other specific mention economic or business problems FOREIGN AFFAIRS 500 FOREIGN RELATIONS/FOREIGN AFFAIRS; foreign policy/relations, prestige abroad 504 Relations with the Third World (no specific country or region mentioned) 505 Relations with WESTERN EUROPE; Great Britain, France, Germany; our allies 510 VIETNAM; general reference to "the war," Indochina, Cambodia; aid 514 Latin America, South America--any references; reference to war/situation in Nicaragua; U.S. support of the Contras 515 Iran; mention of American hostages in Teheran; arms deal 516 African countries; developing areas in Africa (not 518)--any mention; U.S. response to apartheid in South Africa 519 Other specific countries/areas/trouble spots (exc. 520's, 530's) 524 MIDDLE EAST-- support or aid to Israel/Arab states; Arab/Israeli conflict; Iran-Iraq war; hostages in Lebanon/Middle East. [1990] Iraqi aggression in the Persian Gulf 530 RUSSIA/Eastern Europe; relations with Russia/the Communist bloc; detente/trade/negotiations with Russia -- NA whether 531 or 532 531 For PEACEFUL RELATIONS with Russia/Detente/Eastern Europe; for increased TRADE with Russia; talking/resuming negotiations with Russia on arms control/reduction (reaching/concluding a treaty is 711) 532 Against policy of Detente with Russia; COLD WAR; threat of external Communism; need to oppose/be wary of Russia 533 Prevention of Russian (Communist) expansion; mention of Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan-- any reference; references to Soviet activity in Central America/Nicaragua) 539 Other specific references to Russia/Detente/Eastern Europe, etc. (including changing site/boycotting 1980 Moscow Olympics); threat of/preventing war with Russia (exc. 714) 540 FIRMNESS IN FOREIGN POLICY; maintenance of position of MILITARY/DIPLOMATIC STRENGTH (not 710-712) 550 U.S. FOREIGN (MILITARY) INVOLVEMENT/COMMITMENT, extent of U.S. Foreign involvement; military assistance/aid (exc. 524) 560 U.S. FOREIGN (ECONOMIC) INVOLVEMENT/COMMITMENTS; extent of U.S. (foreign) economic aid; "foreign aid" 570 Prevention of war; ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE; any reference 585 Obligation to TAKE CARE OF PROBLEMS AT HOME before helping foreign countries 599 Other specific mention of foreign affairs problems NATIONAL DEFENSE 700 NATIONAL DEFENSE; defense budget; level of spending on defense 710 DISARMAMENT; general reference to ENDING OF THE ARMS RACE; nuclear proliferation; test ban treaty (not 540); SALT; INF treaty 711 For DISARMAMENT; for extension of test ban treaty; support toward ending of arms race; against (additional) expenditures on military/arms development; SALT; SDI ("Star Wars"); INF treaty 712 Against (increased) policy of DISARMAMENT; against test ban treaty; for additional WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT; missile program; scientific/ technological development in weapons/strategy; atomic bomb testing; increased DEFENSE BUDGET, increased arms expenditure (not 540); SALT; increased pay for military personnel; SDI ("Star Wars"); INF treaty 713 General or specific references to functioning and performance of defense; waste, inefficiency (not codeable in 710-712) 714 Nuclear war; the threat of nuclear war; nuclear proliferation 740 The space program; space race (not 711,712) 750 MORALE OF NATION; Patriotism; National spirit; national unity; greed, selfishness of people 760 BENEFITS FOR VETERANS; general reference 765 Allowing/accepting GAYS IN THE MILITARY 799 Other specific mention of national defense problems ISSUES RELATING TO THE FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT 800 POWER OF THE (FEDERAL) GOVERNMENT; power of/control exercised by the federal government 810 (LACK OF) HONESTY IN GOVERNMENT; (LACK OF) ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT--general reference (exc. 811) 811 LACK OF PERSONAL ETHICS/morality of persons related to or part of government 820 CAMPAIGN DONATIONS/PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS; any mentions 830 CONFIDENCE/TRUST in political leaders/system; wisdom, ability, responsiveness of political leaders; quality of leadership provided by political leaders 833 QUALITY/EFFICIENCY of public employees, diplomats, civil service; SIZE OF THE GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY; COST OF GOVERNMENT 836 COMPENSATION; all references to the compensation of government employees, officials, congressmen, judges, local politicians/ bureaucrats 837 Waste in government spending; keeping tabs on where money goes 838 Government BUDGET PRIORITIES are wrong; Congress/President is spending money in the wrong areas/not spending money on the right things 840 SIZE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; the (large) size of government/civil service/bureaucracy; the number of government departments/employees/programs 853 POWER OF CONGRESS--general reference 856 POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT, all other references to the Supreme Court except 857, 858 859 Other specific references to the (federal) balance of power; legislative gridlock in Washington 862 FAIR ELECTION PROCEDURES; prevention of vote manipulation; curbing of political "bosses", smear campaigns 869 Other specific references to problems of representation; term limitations for members of Congress 874 Lack of support for the President; any anti-President comments, negative reference to the PRESIDENT's quality, style, etc. 878 Mention of a specific CANDIDATE or relative of a candidate -- NFS 881 New president/administration getting started; other references specific to the President 885 PUBLIC APATHY/disinterest--all references 887 Extending/protecting EQUAL RIGHTS, basic freedoms, human rights of all citizens 899 Other specific mention of problems relating to the functioning of government OTHER 995 1990-91: "There were no issues"; "there were no issues, just party politics" 996 1990-91: "There was no campaign in my district" 997 Other specific mentions of important problems 998 DK 999 NA 000 INAP; No further mention; no problems >> MASTER CODE LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE CODE GENERAL PHILOSOPHY 010 ACCEPTANCE OF CHANGE/new ideas; less bound to status quo, more open to new ideas/ways of doing things; flexible, innovative, "modern", progressive 110 RESISTANCE TO CHANGE/new ideas; stick to (protect) status quo, resist new ways of doing things; rigid, set in ways, old-fashioned ----- 020 QUICK (RASH) RESPONSE to problems; tackle problems quickly; impetuous, impulsive, (too) aggressive, take more chances, not cautious (enough) 120 Slow (cautious) response to problems, do-nothing, lets things go, avoid risk ----- 021 IRRESPONSIBLE; does not worry about consequences; "anything goes" attitude 121 THOUGHTFUL; worries about consequences ----- 030 Independence of thought, ideas; think on their own; don't (always) follow party directives; outspoken activist, go-getters; look at both sides of question; more likely to compromise/give and take on an issue 130 Don't think independently; compliant, disciplined, follow party directives; look at only one side of issues ----- 035 Consistent; takes firm stands; decisive; determined; stubborn 135 Inconsistent, they switch positions/do not take firm stand on issues; are indecisive ----- 040 FOR EQUALITY, equal rights for everybody; "no 'stuffed shirts"'"; talk on people's level; willing to listen to people, people like me 140 ELITIST; favors maintaining special privileges for some ----- 050 EXTREME, RADICAL, far left (not further specified) 150 MODERATE, middle-of-road, less extreme (not further specified) 155 REACTIONARY, far right (not further specified) ----- 060 Cares about giving to, helping others; compassionate; generous; do-gooder 160 Self-centered, cares primarily about self ----- 061 SENSITIVE TO SOCIAL PROBLEMS; concerned with social reform; interested in improving social conditions; for equalizing distribution of income 161 UNAWARE OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS; not favoring social reform; not interested in improving social conditions; against equalizing/redistribution of income ----- 070 Future-oriented, plan ahead, look to the future 170 Not future-oriented, don't plan ahead, don't worry about the future; short-sighted ----- 071 Idealist, not realistic about what is possible 171 Pragmatic; down to earth, realistic ----- 080 Socialistic, for welfare state, for social welfare programs, for government intervention in social problems; leaves less to (interferes more with) private enterprise 180 FOR FREE ENTERPRISE, capitalism, against socialism (code "help big business" under group references); for development of private enterprise, against government expansion into areas of private enterprise; against government intervention in social problems, leaves individuals to fend off on their own ----- 081 Depends (too much) on federal government (rather than state or local government); (TOO) CENTRALIZED, paternalism, want Washington to do everything 181 For states' rights, local government, less interference from Washington at local level, against powerful federal government ----- 082 DESTROY PERSONAL INITIATIVE/individual responsibility/individual dignity; recognize individual needs government help 182 Initiative/Responsibility/Dignity of individual protected ----- 083 Humanistic; care (more) about people; for the benefit of the person 183 Less/Not humanistic; less/not concerned about people ----- 084 Patriotic, nationalist; looks out for good of our country; pride in government/country/Constitution; has the country's interest at heart 184 Less patriotic, less nationalist; not enough pride in government/ country/Constitution; willing to take care of other people (e.g., refugees) before taking care of people at home ----- 085 Definite moral standards/stands; concern for/control of public morality 185 Freedom to do as one chooses; less interested in strict control of social behavior; not interested in setting moral standards ----- 086 (Good) Christian; strong religious beliefs 186 Not religious ----- 087 Adhere to/uphold/respect the Constitution; live up to/stick to what the Constitution says 187 Deviate from/ignore/don't respect the Constitution; interpret the Constitution to suit their needs; ignore the Constitution when it suits their purposes ----- 088 Support/uphold/defend the Bill of Rights; protect the right to freedom of speech/press/religion, etc.; support the ACLU 188 Seek to curtail/fail to protect/unwilling to observe the Bill of Rights; willing to put limits in freedom of speech/press/ religion, etc.; doesn't support the ACLU General Philosophy (continued) 089 (More) Concerned about HUMAN RIGHTS; places (greater) importance on the protection of human rights. 189 Less/not concerned about HUMAN RIGHTS; does not place/places less importance on the protection of human rights. ----- 090 Other general philosophy reference pertaining to liberals 190 Other general philosophy reference pertaining to conservatives FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY REFERENCES - Fiscal Policy--Easy Spending Responses 400 SPEND MORE FREELY/high spenders (NFS); liberal economic policy; favor government spending 401 Spend much relative to what is accomplished, WASTEFUL, not careful with spending 402 Spend much relative to money available; SPEND US DEEPER IN DEBT 403 Spend under special circumstances, such as hard times 404 Bring cheap money, MORE MONEY CIRCULATING 405 Other easy spending responses 406 Want to RAISE TAXES--NFS; want to keep taxes high/increase government revenues 407 Will increase INCOME TAXES; will not cut income taxes; will rely on increase in/high income tax to provide government revenues - Fiscal Policy--Cautious Spending Responses 500 Spend less freely, economize in government (NFS); tight economic policy; oppose government spending 501 Spend little relative to what is accomplished, LESS WASTEFUL/more careful with government (taxpayers') money 502 Spend little relative to money available, REDUCE DEBT; keep debt from getting higher, balanced budget 503 Spend little even when special circumstances might warrant 504 FOR SOUND MONEY, tight money, deflation 505 Other cautious spending responses 506 Want to CUT TAXES--NFS; want to keep taxes low/decrease government revenues 507 Will cut INCOME TAXES; will not increase income taxes; will rely on taxes other than income tax to provide government revenue 512 Favor (too much) GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER ECONOMY; doesn't let business get more involved/handle problems of poverty/ unemployment, etc. 412 Don't favor (too much) government control over economy; LETS BUSINESS GET MORE INVOLVED/handle problems of poverty/ unemployment, etc. 490 Other reference to fiscal and economic policy 435 Propose/enact FAIR TAXES; believe everyone should be taxed the same/that taxes should be even-handed 535 Propose/enact UNFAIR TAXES; show favoritism/give tax breaks to certain groups or types of people 436 Give tax breaks to the poor/working/middle class people; tax policies favor the lower/middle classes 536 Give tax breaks to the wealthy/corporations; tax policies favor the rich/powerful/upper classes SPECIFIC DOMESTIC POLICIES FAVORED BY LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE 600 MINIMUM WAGE LEGISLATION; favors raising minimum wage, or favors raising unemployment compensation 601 SOCIAL SECURITY, government pension rates 603 FULL EMPLOYMENT policies; government commitment to provide a job for everyone who wants to work 610 MEDICAL (HEALTH) INSURANCE, medical care for the aged, socialized medicine, Medicare 620 Government control of UTILITIES, more attention to conservation; public works, mention of ecology, environment 630 Federal AID TO EDUCATION/school-building, teachers' pay higher 631 Busing; forced integration 632 Other federal control of education or schools response 633 Prayer in schools 640 CIVIL RIGHTS, insist more strongly on civil rights 641 Law and order--hard line (or NA line); want a police state; support death penalty (88) 642 Law and order--soft line; oppose death penalty (88) 643 Property rights, OPEN HOUSING 644 Policies which would divide country, have civil war, race war 650 Higher TARIFFS, less free trade 660 "Wet" legislation, ANTI-PROHIBITION 670 General mention of social welfare, "give-away programs" 671 POVERTY program 672 EMPLOYMENT (job) training programs, job corps, etc. 673 Food stamps 674 Provides for/support/spend (more) for child care or parental leave policy; license/fund day care facilities 680 FARM policy 681 ABORTION; birth control 682 Women's rights; ERA 683 Legalization of pot, lower penalties/lenient drug laws or enforcement 684 Gay rights, homosexuals 685 Nuclear power, construction of nuclear plants 686 Gun control 690 Other specific domestic policy favored SPECIFIC DOMESTIC POLICIES OPPOSED BY LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE 700 MINIMUM WAGE or unemployment compensation; won't raise minimum wage, won't improve unemployment compensation 701 SOCIAL SECURITY, against raising benefits 703 FULL EMPLOYMENT policies; government commitment to provide a job for everyone who wants to work 710 MEDICAL (HEALTH) INSURANCE, against medical care for the aged, against socialized medicine, Medicare 720 Government control of UTILITIES, for private power; less interested in conservation; public works, mention of ecology, environment 730 FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION; against or drag feet on aid to education 731 BUSING; forced integration 732 Other federal control of education or schools response 733 Prayer in schools 740 CIVIL RIGHTS, against or drag feet on civil rights legislation, leave it to states 741 Following a tough or hard line in maintenance of law and order; POLICE STATE; PREVENTION OF CRIME, etc.; imposing the death penalty (88) 742 Following a soft line in maintenance of law and order; POLICE STATE; PREVENTION OF CRIME, etc.; imposing the death penalty (88) 743 Property rights, OPEN HOUSING 744 Policies which would divide country, have civil war, race war; want to unite the country 750 HIGH TARIFFS, want free trade 760 Repeal; WANT PROHIBITION; "dry" 770 General mention of social welfare, "give-away programs" 771 POVERTY program 772 EMPLOYMENT (job) training programs, job corps 773 Food stamps 774 Provide for/support/spend (more) for CHILD CARE or parental leave policy; license/fund day care facilities 780 FARM policy 781 ABORTION; birth control 782 Women's rights; ERA 783 Legalization of pot, lower penalties/lenient drug laws 784 Gay rights, homosexuals 785 Nuclear power, construction of nuclear plants 786 Gun control 790 Other domestic policy opposed GROUP REFERENCES - Liberal/Conservative Good For/Helps/Gives Special Advantage To: 200 EVERYBODY; NOBODY; no catering to special interests, "people" (the majority) 210 WORKING OR LITTLE PEOPLE, the common (poor, lowly) people, the working class, "average man" 212 People like me, people like us 220 Unions, "LABOR", labor leaders 230 BIG BUSINESS, industry, "business(men)", Wall Street (except small businessman, code 240) 231 Rich people, UPPER CLASSES, wealthy (powerful) people 240 SMALL BUSINESSMEN 250 MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE, white collar people 260 FARMERS 270 BLACKS 280 Other racial and ethnic groups 281 THE SOUTH, some portion of the south 282 THE NORTH, some portion of the north 283 WHITE PEOPLE, white people only 284 MINORITIES, minority groups (NA which) 285 OLD PEOPLE 286 The educated, INTELLECTUALS, students 290 Other groups 299 Group reference codeable in 200 or 300 series, NA which - Liberal/Conservative Bad For/Anti/Seeps In Check/Puts In Place: 300 Divisive, SETS CLASS AGAINST CLASS, caters to special interests (NA what), plays group politics; not for all the people; (LIBS/CONS) only for themselves 310 WORKING OR LITTLE PEOPLE, the common (poor, lowly) people, the working class, "average man" 312 PEOPLE LIKE ME, people like us 320 Unions, "LABOR", labor leaders 330 BIG BUSINESS, industry, "business(men)", Wall Street (except small businessman, code 340) 331 Rich people, UPPER CLASSES, wealthy (powerful) people 340 SMALL BUSINESSMEN 350 MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE, white collar people 360 FARMERS 370 BLACKS 371 Racist, prejudiced, bigoted 380 Other racial and ethnic groups; "minority groups," other or NFS 381 THE SOUTH, some portion of the south 382 THE NORTH, some portion of the north 383 WHITE PEOPLE, white people only 384 MINORITIES, minority groups (NA which) 385 OLD PEOPLE 386 The educated, INTELLECTUALS, students 390 Other groups FOREIGN POLICY REFERENCES 800 WAR; get us into war (faster); liberal/conservative associated with war, military 810 PEACE; more likely to keep peace, liberal/conservative associated with peace (no mention of Vietnam specifically) 820 Internationalist; MORE FOR FOREIGN AID/trade, government activities abroad; cooperate with allies; U.N. "more for foreign aid/trade" 830 ISOLATIONIST; avoid foreign activities, cut foreign aid/trade (military or economic); "cut foreign aid/trade" 840 NATIONAL SECURITY; for strong national defense (spending); strong (firm) (too aggressive) posture toward communism (Russia); too much defense spending 850 INADEQUATE NATIONAL SECURITY; fail to maintain (spend for) defense; weak posture toward communism (Russia) 860 Specific trouble spots 870 Control of nuclear weapons 880 Strong foreign policy 881 Weak foreign policy 890 Other foreign policy--other substantive foreign policy mentions (direction of response usually indicated) 891 Mention of "foreign policy" difference, but no substance or direction given (e.g., usually response is "they differ on foreign policy or in how they will handle foreign policy") MISCELLANEOUS 900 Other miscellaneous reference pertaining to liberals 901 Other miscellaneous reference pertaining to conservatives 902 Liberal defined in terms of specific national figure or Democratic party 903 Conservative defined in terms of specific national figure or Republican party 998 DK 999 NA 000 INAP >> MASTER CODE NATIONALITY AND ETHNICITY North America 01 American Indian, tribal mentions 02 Canadian; not specified as French-Canadian (03) 03 Canadian, of French origin 04 Mexican (excluding explicit mention of "Chicano", "Mexican-American" 05 Central American West Indies 07 Barbados 08 Cuban 09 Dominican Republic 10 Haitian 11 Jamaican 12 Puerto Rican 13 West Indian--not from one of the above countries 14 West Indian--NA which country South America 16 South American--any country EUROPE British Isles 18 English, British 19 Irish (not specified as from Northern Ireland, Ulster--22) 20 Scottish 21 Welsh 22 From Northern Ireland (Ulster) 23 Scot-Irish 24 From British Isles; from two or more countries of the British Isles -EUROPE (continued) Western Europe 26 Austrian 27 Belgian 28 French 29 German; also Pennsylvania Dutch 30 Luxembourg 31 Netherlands, Holland; Dutch 32 Swiss 33 From Western Europe; two or more countries of Western Europe Scandinavia 35 Danish 36 Finn, Finnish 37 Norwegian 38 Swedish 39 Icelander 40 Scandinavian; reference to two or more Scandinavian countries -------------------- 41 REFERENCE TO TWO OR MORE COUNTRIES FROM COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS: BRITISH ISLES, WESTERN EUROPE, SCANDINAVIA, MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES, GREECE Eastern Europe 43 Czechoslovakian, Slavic 44 Estonian 45 Hungarian 46 Latvian 47 Lithuanian 48 Polish 49 Russian; from U.S.S.R. 50 Ukrainian 51 Eastern Europe; reference to two or more countries of Eastern Europe Balkan Countries 53 Albanian 54 Bulgarian 55 Greek 56 Rumanian 57 Yugoslavian 58 Mention of two or more Balkan Countries Mediterranean Countries 60 Italian 61 Portugese 62 Spanish 63 Maltese -------------------- 64 EUROPEAN; GENERAL MENTION OF EUROPE; REFERENCE TO TWO OR MORE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES OF EUROPE NOT CODEABLE ABOVE ASIA (except Near East) 65 Pakistani 66 Afghan 67 Indian (not American Indian, code 01) 68 Southeast Asia--from Indochina, Thailand, Malaya, Burma, Philippines, Indonesia 69 Chinese 70 Japanese; Japanese American 71 Korean NEAR EAST 73 Egyptian 74 Iranian, Persian 75 Iraqi 76 Israeli 77 Jordanian 78 Lebanese 79 Arab, Arabian, Saudi Arabian 80 Syrian 81 Turk, Turkish 82 Armenian AFRICA 83 African; from any African country excluding only Egypt (U.A.R.); South African (formerly 90) OCEANIA 85 Australian, New Zealander, Tasmanian ETHNIC GROUPS 86 White, Caucasian 87 Black; Negro; American Black; African American 88 Chicano; Mexican-American; Hispanic; Latin American OTHER, MISCELLANEOUS 90 NEITHER 91 Catholic 92 Protestant 93 Jewish 94 Mormon 95 Other religious groups 97 Other group; combinations not codeable above 98 DK 99 NA >> MASTER CODE PARTY-CANDIDATE PARTY ONLY -- PEOPLE WITHIN PARTY 0001 Johnson 0002 Kennedy, John; JFK 0003 Kennedy, Robert; RFK 0004 Kennedy, Edward; "Ted" 0005 Kennedy, NA which 0006 Truman 0007 Roosevelt; "FDR" 0008 McGovern 0009 Carter 0010 Mondale 0011 McCarthy, Eugene 0012 Humphrey 0013 Muskie 0014 Dukakis, Michael 0015 Wallace 0016 Jackson, Jesse 0017 Clinton, Bill 0018 Clinton, Hillary 0031 Eisenhower; Ike 0032 Nixon 0034 Rockefeller 0035 Reagan 0036 Ford 0037 Bush 0038 Connally 0039 Kissinger 0040 McCarthy, Joseph 0041 Buchanan, Pat 0051 Other national party figures (Senators, Congressman, etc.) 0052 Local party figures (city, state, etc.) 0053 Good/Young/Experienced leaders; like whole ticket 0054 Bad/Old/Inexperienced leaders; dislike whole ticket 0055 Reference to vice-presidential candidate 0097 Other people within party reasons PARTY ONLY -- PARTY CHARACTERISTICS 0101 Traditional Democratic voter: always been a Democrat; just a Democrat; never been a Republican; just couldn't vote Republican 0102 Traditional Republican voter: always been a Republican; just a Republican; never been a Democrat; just couldn't vote Democratic 0111 Positive, personal, affective terms applied to party--good/nice people; patriotic; etc. 0112 Negative, personal, affective terms applied to party--bad/lazy people; lack of patriotism; etc. 0121 Can trust them; they keep their promises; you know where they stand 0122 Can't trust them; they break their promises; you don't know where they stand 0131 Party is well-organized, sticks together, is united; members are disciplined; votes party line 0132 Party is poorly-organized/really two parties/divided/ factionalized; members not disciplined; doesn't vote party line 0133 Party is (more) representative/good cross-section of the country; encompasses a wider variety of views/people; is more at the center of the country's views 0134 Party is less/not representative; bad cross-section of the country; encompasses more restricted views; is less at the center of the country's views 0135 Reference to participation of minority/women candidate(s) 0141 Reference to party's most recent National Convention; party's process/method of selecting presidential/vice-presidential candidates 0151 Performance of local branch of party; how they've done in this state/county/town 0161 Reference to the predominant faction that R sees as being in control of the party (NA which faction); "I don't like the people running it" 0162 Reference to Northerners/Liberals (as in control) of Democratic Party 0163 Reference to Southerners/Conservatives (as in control) of Democratic Party 0164 Reference to Easterners/Liberals/Moderates (as in control) of Republican Party 0165 Reference to Midwesterners/Westerners/Southerners/ Conservatives (as in control) of Republican Party 0167 Can't win; doesn't have a chance 0168 Can win; party can't be beat 0169 Too big a party; there are too many of them; party is too powerful 0170 Too small a party; there are not enough of them; party is too weak 0171 Listens (more) to people; takes (more) into consideration the needs and wants of people; understands (better) the people/the majority of the people 0172 Doesn't listen to/understand the needs and wants of the people/the majority of the people 0173 Campaign tactics, uses too much money in campaigns, slings mud 0174 Party has been in office/controlled Congress/held the White House too long/long enough; we need a change (of party) [code 430 for mentions of candidate] 0197 Other party-characteristic reasons CANDIDATE ONLY -- EXPERIENCE, ABILITY 0201 General reference to him as "a good/bad man or a good/bad guy"; R has heard good/bad things about him; qualifications; general ability; reference to his "personality" 0203 Not qualified for the office; the job is too big for him to handle 0211 Experienced (NA what kind) (see 0217, 0218, 0220 for specific kinds of experience; if in foreign policy see 1100's) 0212 Inexperienced 0213 Dependable/Trustworthy/Reliable; a man you can trust with the responsibilities of government ("trust" in the capability sense, rather than the honesty sense) 0214 Undependable/Untrustworthy/Unreliable; a man you can't trust with the responsibilities of government 0215 A military man; a good military/war record 0216 Not a military man; bad military/war record; no military/war record 0217 His record in public service; how well he's performed in previous offices; voting record in Congress 0218 Has government experience/political experience/seniority/ incumbency 0219 Lacks government experience/political experience 0220 A statesman; has experience in foreign affairs 0221 Not a statesman; lacks experience in foreign affairs 0222 "He has done a good job so far"; he has brought us through hard times"; has gotten things done has some good ideas; trying to do right things 0223 Hasn't done anything; hasn't produced any results (general); has not been able to get programs off the ground 0224 Has fulfilled/Sept (campaign) promises 0225 Has not fulfilled/Sept (campaign) promises 0297 Other candidate experience/ability reasons CANDIDATE ONLY -- CANDIDATE LEADERSHIP QUALITIES 0301 Dignified/has dignity 0302 Undignified/lacks dignity 0303 Strong/decisive/self-confident/aggressive; will end all this indecision 0304 Weak/indecisive/lacks self-confidence/vacillating 0305 Inspiring; a man you can follow; "a leader" 0306 Uninspiring; not a man you can follow; not a leader *0335 Makes people feel good about America/being Americans; is patriotic/loves the country 0307 People have confidence in him 0308 People don't have confidence in him 0309 Good at communicating with blacks, young people, other "problem" groups 0310 Bad at communicating with blacks, young people, other "problem" groups (if communicate in general, see 0441, 0442) 0311 Knows how to handle people (at personal level) 0312 Doesn't know how to handle people (at personal level) 0313 A politician/political person; (too) much in politics; a good politician; part of Washington crowd; politically motivated; just wants to be re-elected 0314 Not a politician; not in politics; above politics; a bad politician 0315 Independent; no one runs him; his own boss 0316 Not independent; run by others; not his own man/boss 0317 Humble; knows his limitations; doesn't pretend to know all the answers 0318 Not humble enough; too cocky/self-confident; can't admit shortcomings; blames others for his/her mistakes 0319 (Too) Careful/Cautious/Good judgment 0320 (Too) Impulsive/Careless/Bad/Poor judgment *0334 Poor at explaining himself/his positions; doesn't answer questions clearly; speaks off the top of his head/doesn't stop to think before he speaks 0321 Helps people in the district on a personal level; has helped R personally with a problem (specific mention); tries to do things for the people 0322 Doesn't help people in the district on a personal level; was not helpful to R with a personal problem (specific mention) 0323 Represents (well) the views of the district; close to people in the district; comes home regularly to chat and mix with people 0324 Does not represent (well) the views of the district; not close to the people in the district; doesn't interact enough with the people 0325 Keeps people well informed about governmental matters; communicates with constituents; any mention of R receiving newsletters or communications from him/her; explains matters well so people can understand 0326 Does not inform people enough about governmental matters; does not send enough newsletters or communications; doesn't explain matters well 0327 Listens to the people/solicits public opinion; any mention of polls or questionnaires; is accessible to constituents (NFS) 0328 Doesn't listen to the people/does not solicit public opinion; isn't accessible to constituents (NFS) 0329 Has helped local (district) economy; brought money, projects, jobs to district 0330 Has not helped local (district) economy; not brought money, projects, jobs to district 0331 Candidate helps the district; watches out for the interests of the district or region in general 0332 Candidate has not protected/watched out for the interests of the district (specific mentions) *0334 Located after 0320 *0335 Located after 0306 0397 Other candidate leadership reason CANDIDATE ONLY -- PERSONAL QUALITIES 0401 Honest/Sincere; keeps promises; man of integrity; means what he says; fair; not tricky; open and candid; straightforward; positive Playboy references (1976) 0402 Dishonest/Insincere; breaks promises; no integrity; doesn't mean what he says; tricky; not open and candid; not straightforward 0403 Man of high principles/ideals; high moral purpose; idealistic (if too idealistic, code 0416) 0404 Lacks principles/ideals 0405 Racist/Bigoted/Prejudiced 0406 Not a racist/bigoted/prejudiced 0407 Public servant; man of duty; conscientious; hard-working; would be a full-time President; good attendance record in Congress; dedicated; really interested in serving people 0408 Doesn't take public service seriously; lazy; would be a part-time President; poor attendance record in office; not dedicated; not really interested in serving people 0409 Doesn't use office for personal benefit; not in office to maximize personal benefit 0410 Uses/in office (mostly) for personal benefits (junket trips, big salary, other perks) 0411 Patriotic; (88) like Bush's stand on Pledge of Allegiance issue 0412 Unpatriotic; (88) dislike Dukakis' stand on Pledge of Allegiance issue 0413 Understands the nation's/district's problems; well-informed; studies up on issues 0414 Doesn't understand the nation's/district's problems; poorly informed; doesn't study up on issues 0415 Realistic 0416 Unrealistic; too idealistic; (if "idealistic" in positive sense, code 0403) 0417 Uses common sense; makes a lot of sense; pragmatic/ practical/down-to-earth 0418 Not sensible; impractical 0419 (Too) well educated; scholarly 0420 Poorly educated; unschooled 0421 Intelligent/Smart 0422 Unintelligent/Stupid/Dumb *0464 Uninformed; doesn't (seem to) know anything about the issues/what is going on in the country/ government 0423 Religious; "moral" (in religious sense); God-fearing; "too" religious 0424 "Irreligious"; "immoral" (in religious sense); Playboy interview (reflects on Carter--1976) 0425 Self-made; not well off; started out as poor; worked his way up; (started out) unpolished/unrefined/rough 0426 Wealthy; rich; born with silver spoon in mouth; polished/refined/well-mannered 0427 Old hat; has run before; a die-hard; "a loser" (in the past) 0428 Someone new; a fresh face 0429 Don't change horses in midstream 0430 Time for a change; incumbent has been in office too long/long enough [code 174 for mentions of party] 0431 Unsafe/Unstable; dictatorial; craves power; ruthless 0432 Safe/Stable 0433 Sense of humor; jokes a lot (too much) 0434 No sense of humor; humorless (too serious) 0435 Kind/Warm/Gentle 0436 Cold/Aloof 0437 Likeable; gets along with people; friendly; outgoing 0438 Not likeable; can't get along with people 0439 Democratic (in non-partisan sense) 0440 Undemocratic (in non-partisan sense) 0441 High-fallutin'/High-brow; talks in circles; can't talk to common man; can't communicate ideas well 0442 Not high-fallutin'/is low-brow; talks straight; can talk to common man; can communicate ideas well 0443 Well-known; "I know him/her" 0444 Unknown; not well known 0445 Reference to his family (not 0457) 0446 Reference to his wife/spouse 0447 Speaking ability 0448 Health 0449 Appearance/Looks/Face/Appearance on TV; his smile 0450 Age (NA how perceived) 0451 (Too) Old 0452 (Too) Young 0453 Mature 0454 Immature 0455 Regional reference; "he's a Southerner"; "he's a Midwesterner"; he comes from the country/a rural area; area reference 0456 Previous occupation 0457 He's a family man 0459 Energetic; too energetic 0460 Not energetic 0461 Gender, e.g., "She's a woman" 0462 Racial/Ethnic attribute; "He is a black man" *0464 Located after 0422 0495 Other negative personal qualities 0496 Other positive personal qualities 0497 Other candidate personal qualities 0498 References to Playboy interview--NA direction or neutral; "it's OK," "that is what the Bible says", (not 0401)--1976 CANDIDATE ONLY--PARTY CONNECTIONS 0500 A Democrat; good Democrat; typical Democrat 0501 A Republican; good Republican; typical Republican 0502 Controlled by party regulars/bosses/machine 0503 Not controlled by party regulars/bosses 0504 Reference to men around him/staff/followers 0505 Reference to his speeches (exc. 0447), campaign tactics; mud-slinging; (88) dislike Bush's stand on Pledge of Allegiance issue 0506 Can win; best choice for party victory 0507 Cannot win; not good choice for party victory 0508 Reference to linkage with other party figures (he's close to the Kennedy's; he was close to Eisenhower; etc.) 0509 Would continue/Seep/follow Democratic policies (unspecified) 0510 Would change/get rid of " " 0511 Would continue/Seep/follow Democratic domestic policies (unspecified, not codeable in 0900's) 0512 Would change/get rid of " " " 0513 Would continue/Seep/follow Democratic foreign policies (unspecified, not codeable in 1100's) 0514 Would change/get rid of " " " 0515 Would continue/Seep/follow Republican policies (unspecified) 0516 Would change/get rid of " " 0517 Would continue/Seep/follow Republican domestic policies (unspecified, not codeable in 0900's) 0518 Would change/get rid of " " " 0519 Would continue/Seep/follow Republican foreign policies (unspecified, not codeable in 1100's) 0520 Would change/get rid of " " " 0531 More liberal than most Democrats; a Northern Democrat 0532 More conservative " " ; a Southern Democrat 0533 More liberal than most Republicans; an Eastern Republican 0534 More conservative " " ; a Midwestern/Western/ Southern Republican 0535 Will bring in/listen to the (party) liberals 0536 Will bring in/listen to the (party) conservatives 0541 References to the physical or mental health of vice-presidential incumbent/candidate; emotional state/stability of vice-presidential incumbent/candidate; [1972] References to the Eagleton affair 0542 Reference to vice-presidential incumbent/candidate, running mate - NEC 0543 References to age/gender/race/ethnic background of vice-presidential incumbent/candidate; [1984] Mondale's selection of a woman for vice-president 0544 Mention of issue(s) that vice-presidential incumbent/candidate is identified with or has taken a leading role in promoting; [1992] Gore's position on the environment 0551 References to link with "Watergate"--positive reference to Watergate 0552 Not associated with "Watergate"--negative reference to Watergate; making too much out of Watergate 0553 Ford's pardon of Nixon--NA direction or against pardon 0554 " " " --pro; brave/right thing to do 0555 Positive references about independent candidacy; maybe the country needs a third party; third parties should have more recognition; the two party system needs buckling 0556 Negative references/liabilities related to independent candidacy; "he's an independent" (NFS); "we don't need a third party"; "he lacks backing from a party" 0597 Other candidate party connection reasons PARTY OR CANDIDATE--GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT 0601 Good/Efficient/Businesslike administration; balanced budget; lower/wouldn't increase national debt; cautious spending 0602 Bad/Inefficient/Unbusinesslike administration; wasteful; "bureaucratic"; deficit budget; higher/increased national debt; overspend 0603 Honest government; not corrupt; no "mess in Washington" 0604 Dishonest/Corrupt government; "mess in Washington"; immorality in government; reference to Hayes, Mills, Lance; [1992] writing bad checks on the House of Representatives bank 0605 (Would) Spend less (than other side); (would) spend too little 0606 (Would) Spend more (than other side); (would) spend too much 0607 Has brought/will bring about bureaucratic reform 0608 Has not brought/will not bring about bureaucratic reform 0609 General assessment of job he/they would do/are doing; is good/bad President; are providing good/bad administration *0622 Doesn't work (hard) at job; not involved (enough) in the work of his office/delegates too much authority to others; has chosen poor/incompetent aides; his aides have not performed well 0610 Reference to management/performance in Congress/Supreme Court/other government agency; references to the quality of appointments made to public posts (courts, cabinet, commissions) 0611 He has/has not worked well with (Democratic) Congress; would/could have done better with (Republican) Congress; he kept/would keep Congress in check 0612 He will work well/better with (Democratic) Congress 0613 Gets more done/accomplishes as much/more productive 0614 Gets less done/doesn't accomplish as much/less productive *0625 Mostly approve of/happy with job done so far, but doesn't approve of everything that has been done 0615 Sympathy/understanding expressed for the complexity/ magnitude of the job (e.g., President): tough job 0616 Sympathy/understanding expressed for the difficult situation ("a mess") inherited by the incumbent *0623 Doing the best he can (under the circumstances); doing as good a job as anyone else could do; everyone makes some mistakes 0617 Will face (difficult) issues; faces problems directly; faces up to political reality 0618 Will not face (difficult) issues; will not face problems directly; ignores political reality 0619 Supports the president/works well with the president/would work well with the president 0620 Does not support the president/does not (would not) work well with the president 0621 Response to/handling of domestic crisis or natural disaster - riot, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, flood, etc. *0622 Located after 0609 *0623 Located after 0616 *0625 Located after 0614 0624 Opposes term limitations for Congress 0626 Favors term limitations for Congress 0627 The economy is bad, but that is not (necessarily) his fault 0697 Other government management reasons 0628 [1994] Contract with America that was proposed by Republicans; support/commitment/opposition to Contract with America PARTY OR CANDIDATE--MISCELLANEOUS 0701 Just like him/them (NA why); like everything about him/them; "I was hoping he would win the (nomination/primaries)" 0702 Just dislike/Don't like him/them (NA why); don't like anything about him/them *0732 Used to like him but don't now; have lost respect for him 0703 Will save America; America needs him/them 0704 Will ruin America; last thing America needs 0705 Will unite Americans/bring people together 0706 Will divide Americans/drive people apart 0707 Speaks of party/candidate as good protector(s); will know what to do; more intelligent 0708 Speaks of party/candidate as bad protector(s); won't know what to do 0709 Good for country (unspecified); trying to do good job; trying; not just out for self/own best interest; has/have country's interest at heart 0710 Bad for country (unspecified); don't have country's interests at heart; only looking out for their own interests 0711 Lesser of two evils 0718 Treatment of Jesse Jackson; didn't offer him the vice-presidential nomination; didn't use him (effectively) to get out the Black vote; weren't courteous/respectful toward him; didn't keep promises made to him 0719 References to damaging incidents in candidate's personal life (sexual escapades, financial problems, substance abuse, etc); [1980] Reference to Chappaquidic; Kennedy's personal problems 0720 Reference to Watergate affair (exc. 0551-0554) 0721 The way the incumbent came to office; the people should select President 0722 The incumbent should have a chance (on his own)/another chance/second chance 0723 (I believe in/Necessary for) a two-party system; choice between candidates; opposition; balances power of other party 0724 Vote for the man rather than party; look for more qualified man; don't pay attention to parties 0725 The opponent who the candidate ran against; the candidate was the better/worse of the two in general; the candidate ran against someone I really like/dislike 0726 Splits votes; will elect wrong candidate; "spoiler" 0727 Expression of sympathy/admiration for the candidate's underdog position; trying hard against terrible odds; courageous uphill battle; "I like underdogs"; "they are bucking the guy" (keeping him off ballot, not taking him seriously, not giving him enough publicity) 0728 Negative comments about the candidate's switching parties, being a turncoat, disloyal to his original party 0729 Party selection of a woman for vice-president 0730 Mention of debates; candidate's performance in the debates 0731 Position (vote) on increasing congressional salary; position (vote) on accepting honoraria/outside pay/royalties while in office *0732 Located after 0702 0733 References to candidate's children or extended family [code 446 for references to spouse] 0796 References to unfair/undeserved/excessive criticism by media or public 0797 Other miscellaneous reasons: Other miscellaneous reasons relating to image and candidate/party effect on nation PARTY OR CANDIDATE--GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY/PHILOSOPHY 0801 General assessment of ideas/policies/stands (unspecified) 0802 Different from other party/candidate 0803 Same as other party/candidate; not different enough 0804 (Too) negative; always tearing down other side; no solutions of his/their own 0805 For government activity; believe government should take care of things; for big government; supports social programs/ spending (not 0905-0907) 0806 Against government activity; believe government involved in too many things; favors reduction in social programs/ spending (not 0905-0907) 0807 Humanistic; favor human beings over property rights 0808 Not humanistic; favor property rights over human beings 0809 Favor social change/reform/progress/improvement of social conditions 0810 Against social change/reform/progress/improvement of social conditions 0811 Socialistic 0812 Anti-socialistic 0813 Communistic/soft/hard-liner on Communism/apologist for Communists/dupe 0814 (Too) anti-communistic/hard-liner on Communism 0815 (Too) liberal (except 0531 or 0533) 0816 (Too) conservative (except 0532 or 0534) 0817 Moderate/middle of the road/for slow change; not an extremist/fanatic 0818 Extremist/fanatic/too far out; not too moderate/not a fence-sitter 0819 Pro-Far Right/Birchers/reactionaries; encouraging fascist/ police state 0820 Anti-Far Right/ " " ; discouraging " 0821 Pro-Far Left/radicals/Yippies/SDS; encouraging anarchy/ guerilla state 0822 Anti-Far Left/ " " " ; discouraging " 0823 Pro-Extremists (NA direction)/nuts/bomb-throwers 0824 Anti-Extremists " " " 0827 Pro-States'/local/community rights; better local government 0828 Anti- " " " " ; worse/weaker local government 0829 For equality; believe everyone should have things equally/ be treated equally 0830 Anti-equality; believe some people should have more than others/people should not be treated equally 0831 Generous, compassionate, believe in helping others 0832 Selfish, only help themselves 0833 Acceptance of change/new ideas; less bound to status quo; more open to new ideas/ways of doing things; flexible, innovative 0834 Resistance to change/new ideas; stick to (protect) status quo; resist new ways of doing things; rigid 0835 Has a well-defined set of beliefs/definite philosophy; does not compromise on principles; has (clear) understanding of goals they stand for 0836 Has poorly defined set of beliefs; lacks a definite philosophy; compromise on principles; has no (clear) understanding of goals they stand for 0837 Favor work ethic; believes in self-reliance/in people working hard to get ahead 0838 Doesn't favor work ethic; believes in people being handed things/in government handouts (if specific policy mentioned, code in 0900's) 0841 Keep track of/control over administration heads, cabinet members, etc.; follow through on policies; determine if programs are working 0842 Don't (as in 0841) 0843 Conditional evaluation: R suggests candidate/party cannot solve problems because not under his/their control (no negative connotations); will he/they be able to do what they say (determining factor outside his/their control); "I like what he says but wonder if he can do it" (if clearly negative, code in 0122 or 0402) 0845 Will involve/wants to involve people/Congress/Cabinet/ advisors/other government officials in government/ decision making 0846 Will not involve people/Congress/Cabinet/advisors/other government officials in government/decision making 0847 Separation of church and state/religion and politics--pro 0848 Separation of church and state/religion and politics--anti 0849 Stand/views on religion (church/state relationship NA) 0897 Other Government Activity/Philosophy reasons PARTY OR CANDIDATE--DOMESTIC POLICIES 0900 General assessment of domestic ideas/policies/stands (unspecified) 0901 General assessment of economic policy (unspecified) 0902 Government economic controls--NA direction 0903 " " " --Pro; we need planned economy; control of private enterprise 0904 " " " --Anti; we have too much interference in private enterprise 0905 Welfare/Poverty problems--NA direction; give-away 0906 " " " --Pro government aid/activity; pro give-aways 0907 " " " --Anti government aid/activity; anti give-aways; pro self-help 0908 Social Security/Pensions--NA direction 0909 " " " --Pro expansion in coverage and/or increase in benefits 0910 " " " --Anti expansion in coverage and/or increase in benefits; favoring contraction and/or decrease 0911 Unemployment compensation--NA direction 0912 " " --Pro expansion in coverage and/or increase in benefits 0913 " " --Anti expansion in coverage and/or increase in benefits; favoring contraction and/or decrease 0914 Aid to education--NA direction 0915 " " --Pro 0916 " " --Anti 0917 Aid to parochial schools--NA direction 0918 " " " --Pro 0919 " " " --Anti *1052 School choice plans; vouchers -- pro *1053 " " " -- anti *1047 Establish/enforce standards for schools (test teachers, require minimum curricula, regulate class size, etc) -- NA direction *1048 " " " -- Pro *1049 " " " --Anti 0920 Housing--NA direction 0921 " --Pro more public housing 0922 " --Anti more public housing 0923 Aid/Programs for older people/the aged, Medicare, Medicaid, direction -- NA 0924 " " " -- Pro 0925 " " " -- Anti 0926 Monetary policy--NA direction 0927 " " --Pro loose(r) money; more availability of loans for housing, cars, etc.; lower interest rates 0928 " " --Anti loose(r) money; for tighter money; less availability of loans; higher interest rates *1054 Value of the dollar relative to gold/other currencies; any mentions of gold/currencies *1046 Solvency/stability/regulation/control of the nation's FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. [1990] Involvement in the Savings and Loan scandals 0929 Tax policy--NA direction 0930 " " --Pro lower taxes 0931 " " --Anti lower taxes; for higher taxes 0932 " " --Pro reform/fairer system/end of loopholes/ write-offs/dodges 0933 " " --Anti reform/fairer system/end of loopholes/ write-offs/dodges *1055 Line item veto -- pro *1056 Line item veto -- anti 0942 [1990] Candidate voted for the budget agreement which resulted in increased taxes/fees 0934 "The Times"/General conditions/Prosperity/The Economy --better under him/them 0935 " " --worse under him/them 0936 Inflation/Cost of living--lower/better under him/them 0937 " " " --higher/worse under him/them 0938 Wages/Salaries/Income/Employment--higher/better under him/ them 0939 " " " " --lower/worse under him/them 0940 Prices for producers--higher/better under him/them 0941 " " --lower/worse (if farm, see 0943-0945) 0942 Located after 0933 0943 Programs to help farmers -- NA direction 0944 " " " --Pro (greater) help/fairer system, reform in system; higher price supports 0945 " " " --Anti (greater) help/fairer system, reform in system; higher price supports 0946 Civil rights/Racial justice/Integration/Desegregation/Voting Rights -- NA direction 0947 " " -- Pro 0948 " " -- Anti *1043 Affirmative Action programs -- NA direction *1044 " " " -- Pro; favors quotas based on race or gender *1045 " " " -- Anti; opposes quotas based on race or gender 0949 Civil liberties/Freedom of expression/First amendment/ Privacy -- NA direction 0950 " -- Pro; against snooping; political trials, etc; (88) like Dukakis' stand on Pledge of Allegiance issue 0951 " -- Anti; for snooping; political trials; McCarthyite; (88) dislike Republican party stand on Pledge of Allegiance issue 0952 General assessment of Labor policy (unspecified) 0953 Right to work laws--NA direction 0954 " " " --Pro (i.e., opposes unions [anti-labor, code 1208]) 0955 " " " --Anti (i.e., supports unions [pro-labor, code 1207]) 0956 Strikes--NA direction 0957 " --will have fewer/will handle better 0958 " --will have more/will handle worse 0959 Public power/Utilities/TVA/Atomic reactors/Nuclear power plants/Etc. -- NA direction 0960 " " " -- Pro 0961 " " " -- Anti *1059 Regulation of companies engaged in public communication or transportation -- pro *1060 " " " " -- anti 0962 Ecology/Environment; Air and Water Pollution--NA direction 0963 Will crack down on polluters, will be activist; will protect the environment 0964 Won't crack down on polluters, doesn't care; in league with polluters; not willing to protect the environment 0965 Veterans' Benefits--NA direction 0966 " " --Pro expansion of coverage and/or increase in benefits 0967 " " --Anti expansion of coverage and/or increase in benefits; favoring contraction and/or decrease 0968 Law and order--NA direction 0969 " " --soft line--unspecified 0970 " " " " --blacks 0971 " " " " --campus demonstrators 0972 " " " " --criminals/organized crime/ hoodlums/street crime 0973 " " " " --anti power of police; court interference *1041 " " " " --opposes death penalty 0974 " " --hard line--unspecified 0975 " " " " --blacks 0976 " " " " --campus demonstrators 0977 " " " " --criminals/organized crime/ hoodlums/street crime 0978 " " " " --pro power of police; reduced court interference *1042 " " " " --favors death penalty 0979 Public morality--NA direction 0980 " " --Strict/older/traditionalistic outlook; improve/renew morality of country; pro-family; defends family values 0981 " " --Permissive/newer/modernistic outlook; not (strongly enough) pro-family; doesn't defend (strongly enough) family values 0982 Drugs--NA direction 0983 " --Pro legalization/decriminalization; soft-liner; (88) doesn't support (strongly enough) the war on drugs; not willing to do more to combat drug use/pushers; involvement with Noreiga 0984 " --Anti legalization/decriminalization; hard-liner; (88) supports the war on drugs; willing to do more to combat drug use/ pushers 0985 Abortion and birth control--NA direction 0986 " " " --Pro reform/legalization; new outlook 0987 " " " --Anti reform/legalization; traditional outlook 0988 Gun control--NA direction 0989 " " --Pro; controls 0990 " " --Anti; "everyone has the right to own a gun" 0991 Busing--NA direction 0992 " --Pro; against neighborhood school 0993 " --Anti; for neighborhood school 0994 Urban problem/Cities--NA direction 0995 " " " --Pro government aid/activity 0996 " " " --Anti government aid/activity 0997 Other domestic policy reasons 1001 National Health Insurance--NA direction 1002 " " " --Pro 1003 " " " --Anti 1004 Energy/Gas shortage--Development of alternative energy source, NA direction 1005 " " " --Pro development of alternative source, better/handled better; more fuel 1006 " " " --Anti development of alternative energy source, worse/handled worse; less fuel ******************************************************* References to nuclear energy should be coded in 0959. ******************************************************* 1007 Government plans to make more jobs--NA direction; make-work programs; CETA; WPAL; CCA 1008 " " " " --Pro 1009 " " " " --Anti 1010 Confidence/Trust in government--NA direction 1011 " " " --would handle better; restore confidence 1012 " " " --would handle worse; cause loss of confidence 1013 ERA; Women's rights--NA direction 1014 " " " --Pro 1015 " " " --Anti 1016 Influx of political/economic refugees (Cubans, Haitians, Mexicans, etc.) --NA direction 1017 " " " --Pro 1018 " " " --Anti 1019 School prayer--NA direction 1020 " " --Pro 1021 " " --Anti 1022 Gay rights--NA direction 1023 " " --Pro 1024 " " --Anti 1025 Health--NA direction: [1994](Clinton's) National health care plan/program 1026 " --Pro government programs/aid for mentally ill, disabled, handicapped: [1994] (Clinton's) National health care plan/program 1027 " --Anti " " " " " (except 0923, 0924, 0925): [1994](Clinton's) National health care plan/program 1028 Space program--NA direction 1029 " " --Pro 1030 " " --Anti 1031 Help to/improvement in a specific industry or occupation--NA direction 1032 " " " " " -- Pro help/improvement 1033 " " " " " -- Anti help/improvement *1057 Spending on infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc) -- Pro *1058 " " " " -- Anti 1035 Polarization of classes/increasing gap between rich and poor--NA direction 1036 " " " " " --will stop trend/ handle better 1037 " " " " " --will accelerate trend/ handle better 1038 Day care--NA direction 1039 " " --favors/will expand or extend day care programs 1040 " " --opposes/will not expand or extend (will cut or eliminate) day care programs *1050 Family/maternity leave laws -- Pro *1051 " " " " " -- Anti 1041 Located after 0973 *1042 Located after 0978 *1043 Located after 0948 *1044 Located after 0948 *1045 Located after 0948 *1046 Located after 0928 *1047 Located after 0919 *1048 Located after 0919 *1049 Located after 0919 *1050 Located after 1040 *1051 Located after 1040 *1052 Located after 0919 *1053 Located after 0919 *1054 Located after 0928 *1055 Located after 0933 *1056 Located after 0933 *1057 Located after 1033 *1058 Located after 1033 *1059 Located after 0961 *1060 Located after 0961 PARTY OR CANDIDATE--FOREIGN POLICIES 1101 General assessment of foreign ideas/policies/stands (unspecified) 1102 Foreign policies more clear-cut/decisive; less bungling 1103 Foreign policies less clear-cut/decisive; more bungling 1104 Internationalist/Interested in other countries' problems/Interested in world role/Pro-UN and allies; Meddling in other people's problems 1105 Isolationist/America First/Fortress America/Would meddle less in other people's problems *1184 Military/Defense position/spending--NA direction or neutral (not 1106, 1107) 1106 Strong military position/Preparedness/Weapons systems/ Pentagon spending/Overkill; SDI ("Star Wars") 1107 Weak military position/Pentagon spending cutbacks/No overkill/Reduce armed forces; SDI ("Star Wars") 1108 Cold-war oriented; opposed detente; international Communist-fighter 1109 Against cold war/Wants thaw/Detente/Understanding with international communists (if NA whether international, code in 0813-0814) 1110 Military aid to allies--NA direction 1111 " " " --Pro 1112 " " " --Anti 1113 Economic aid/Foreign aid/AID/Non-military aid--NA direction 1114 " " " " " " " --Pro 1115 " " " " " " " --Anti 1116 Located after 1163 1117 " " " 1118 Mideast--NA direction; any references to oil embargo; boycott of companies dealing with Israel; [1992] References to involvement in Iraqgate/arming of Saddam Hussein 1119 " --handle better/more experience; positive comments about Arab-Israeli peace treaty 1120 " --handle worse/less experience; negative comments about Arab-Israeli peace treaty 1121 " --Pro-Israel/anti-Arabs 1122 " --Anti-Israel/pro-Arabs; wishy-washy on Israel 1123 Red China--NA direction 1124 " " --handle better/more experience/doing well, better 1125 " " --handle worse/less experience/doing poorly 1126 " " --pro understanding/thaw/detente/new relationships/ recognition/admission to UN 1127 " " --anti understanding/thaw/detente/new relationships/ recognition/admission to UN; defender of Formosa/ Chaing/Nationalists 1128 Russia--NA direction 1129 " --handle better/more experience 1130 " --handle worse/less experience 1131 " --pro understanding/thaw/detente/broadening of relations; SALT II 1132 " --anti understanding/thaw/detente/broadening of relations; SALT II 1133 Eastern Europe--NA direction 1134 " " --handle better/more experience 1135 " " --handle worse/less experience 1136 " " --pro defense of Iron-Curtain countries 1137 " " --anti " " " *1301 Western Europe -- NA direction *1302 " " -- handling relations with European Community/specific countries well (better) *1303 " " " " badly (worse) 1138 Latin America--NA direction 1139 " " --handle better/more experience 1140 " " --handle worse/less experience 1141 " " --pro-third world posture; reach understanding with Castro/Chile/neutrals; anti-colonialism /European powers; against Contra aid/pro- Sandinista 1142 " " --anti-third world posture; hard anti-communism/anti-revolutionary policy; pro-colonialism/ European powers; pro Contra aid/anti-Sandinista *1198 (Involvement in) Diversion of money to the Contras (in violation of the law) 1143 Africa--NA direction 1144 " --handle better/more experience 1145 " --handle worse/less experience 1146 " --pro-third world posture; reach understanding with leftists/neutrals; anti-colonialism/ European powers 1147 " --anti-third world posture; hard anti-communism/anti-revolutionary policy; pro- colonialism/European powers 1148 Asia/India--NA direction 1149 " " --handle better/more experience 1150 " " --handle worse/less experience 1151 " " --pro India/Bangladesh 1152 " " --pro Pakistan 1153 Located after 1163 1154 " " " 1155 " " " 1156 " " " 1157 Vietnam/Indochina/Southeast Asia--NA direction 1158 " " " " --better chance for peace 1159 " " " " --poorer chance for peace; failed to end war 1160 " " " " --pro military victory/ preservation of Saigon regime 1161 " " " " --anti military victory/ willing to sacrifice Thieu/Sy; favoring withdrawal 1163 " " --will bring policy change (unspecified) *1116 Trouble spots (not specifically coded)--would handle better (Panama, Afghanistan, Persian Gulf) *1117 " " " " " --would handle worse (Panama, Afghanistan, Persian Gulf) *1162 (88) The invasion of Grenada *1300 (91) The Persian Gulf war/ Desert Storm *1153 Would raise American prestige *1154 Would lower American prestige; not maintain American prestige *1155 Would have better chance for peace (unspecified); not get us into trouble abroad *1156 Would have poorer chance for peace (unspecified); get us into war/trouble abroad 1164 Tariffs--NA direction 1165 " --Pro free trade/reduce tariffs; would not protect US labor from foreign competition 1166 " --Anti free trade; for high tariffs; would protect US labor from foreign competition *1196 Foreign trade/balance of payments deficit--any mention 1167 Trade with communists--NA direction 1168 " " --Pro 1169 " " --Anti 1170 Draft--NA direction 1171 " --Pro volunteer army/abolition of peacetime draft 1172 " --Anti volunteer army; for peacetime draft 1173 " --Pro amnesty/pardon 1174 " --Anti amnesty/draft dodgers/pardon *1178 Amnesty--NA direction 1175 POW-MIA--Will get prisoners back, will not abandon them 1176 POW-MIA--Will not get prisoners back, will abandon them 1177 POW-MIA--NA direction *1178 Located after 1174 1179 Did a good job of getting the boys/country out of Vietnam war; got us out of Vietnam 1180 Should have won Vietnam war; gave too much away and then pulled out 1181 Secrecy/deception in U.S. foreign policy; shuttle diplomacy; Kissinger's foreign policy (1976) --NA direction 1182 " " " " --Pro 1183 " " " " --Anti 1184 Located after 1105 1185 Priorities in military/defense spending (not reduction or increase but allocation of existing defense budget--Pro 1186 Priorities in military/defense spending (not reduction or increase but allocation of existing defense budget--Anti 1187 Iranian crisis; American hostages (1980)/Arms sale (1986) -- NA direction 1188 " " " " --has handled well/would handle better 1189 " " " " --has handled poorly/would handle worse 1190 Nuclear freeze/Disarmament--NA direction 1191 " " " --Pro 1192 " " " --Anti 1193 Terrorism; dealings with terrorists; hostages (except 1187-1189) -- NA direction; (88) Bombing of Libya 1194 " " " -- has handled/would handle better; (88) Bombing of Libya/handling of Khadafy 1195 " " " -- has handled/would handle worse; (88) Bombing of Libya/handling of Khadafy *1196 Located after 1166 1197 Other foreign policy reasons *1198 Located after 1142 1199 Iran-Contra affair--NFS (NA whether 1187 or 1198) PARTY OR CANDIDATE--GROUP CONNECTIONS 1201 Special interests/Privileged people/Influential--Pro 1202 " " " " --Anti 1203 "People like me"--pro, NA whether 1205, 1206 1204 " " " --anti, " " " " 1205 Common man/People/Little people/Working people--Pro 1206 " " " " --Anti 1207 Labor/Unions/Labor bosses/Racketeers--Pro 1208 " " " " --Anti 1209 Big Business/Corporate rich/The rich individuals/People with power/Wall Street/Industry/Upper classes--Pro 1210 (Same as 1209) --Anti 1211 Small businessman--Pro 1212 " " --Anti 1213 White collar workers/Salaried people/Middle class--Pro 1214 " " --Anti 1215 Farmers/Country people--Pro 1216 " " --Anti 1217 Blacks/Black people/Negroes--Pro 1218 " " --Anti 1219 People on welfare/ADC mothers/"Chiselers"--Pro 1220 " " " --Anti 1221 Old people/Senior citizens--Pro 1222 " " " --Anti 1223 Young people/Sids/"Freaks"/Hippies--Pro 1224 " " " " " --Anti 1225 Women/Feminists/Womens Liberationists, "sexists"--Pro 1226 " " " " " --Anti 1227 Veterans/Servicemen--Pro 1228 " " --Anti 1229 Ethnic or racial group (exc. 1217-1218); Minority groups (NA composition--Pro 1230 " " --Anti 1231 Section of the country--Pro 1232 " " --Anti 1233 Poor people/needy people/the unemployed -- Pro 1234 " " --Anti 1235 Civil servants--Pro 1236 " " --Anti 1297 Other group connection reasons *1300 Located after 1162 *1301 Located after 1137 *1302 Located after 1137 *1303 Located after 1137 EVENTS UNIQUE TO ONE CAMPAIGN 5001 [1992] Perot quit the race/is a quitter - NFS 5002 [1992] Because Perot quit the race he is not trustworthy/dependable/steadfast (enough); he let down his supporters 5003 [1992] Because Perot quit the race and then re-entered it he is indecisive/inconsistent/not stable (enough); mentions of re-entering the race after have left it - NFS 5004 [1992] Perot is not a serious candidate MISSING DATA CODES 9001 R has been influenced by spouse 9002 R has been influenced by someone else 9996 Refused to say 9997 Other miscellaneous 9998 DK 9999 NA 0000 INAP * Indicates code descriptions that are listed out-of-order. >> MASTER CODE PARTY DIFFERENCES RESPONSES THAT REFER SPECIFICALLY TO THE CANDIDATES RATHER THAN PARTIES SHOULD BE CODED 910. However, if the candidates are referred to as leaders or representatives of the parties, the response should be coded with the appropriate code category. BROAD PHILOSOPHY - LIBERAL RESPONSES 001 More LIBERAL, progressive--too far left 010 ACCEPTANCE OF CHANGE/new ideas; less bound to status quo; more open to new ideas; new ways of doing things 020 QUICK (RASH) RESPONSE TO PROBLEMS; tackle problems quickly; impetuous; impulsive; too aggressive; take more chances; not cautious enough 030 More extreme, RADICAL (NFS) 040 SOCIALISTIC; for welfare state; for social welfare programs; sensitive to social problems; leaves less to (interferes more with) private enterprise 050 DEPENDS (TOO MUCH) ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (rather than state or local government); (too) centralized, paternalism; want Washington to do everything 060 DESTROY PERSONAL INITIATIVE/individual responsibility/individual dignity; recognize individual needs government help 070 FUTURE-ORIENTED; plan ahead; look to the future 085 FREEDOM TO DO AS ONE CHOOSES; less interested in strict control of social behavior; not interested in moral standards 086 Not religious; against prayer in school 090 Other broad philosophy--liberal - CONSERVATIVE RESPONSES 100 More CONSERVATIVE/reactionary; too far right 110 RESISTANCE TO CHANGE/NEW IDEAS; stick to (protect) status quo; traditionalists; resist new ways of doing things; rigid 120 SLOW (CAUTIOUS) RESPONSE TO PROBLEMS; DO-NOTHING; lets things go 130 Moderate; middle of road (NFS); less extreme 140 For FREE ENTERPRISE capitalism; against socialism (code "help big business" under group references); unaware of social problems; for development of private enterprise; against expansion of government activities into areas of private enterprise 150 FOR STATES' RIGHTS, local government; less interference from Washington at local level; against powerful federal government 160 INITIATIVE/responsibility/dignity of individual protected 170 NOT FUTURE-ORIENTED; don't plan ahead; don't worry about the future 185 DEFINITE MORAL STANDARDS/stands; concern for/control of public morality; upholds/fosters family values 186 (Good) Christian; strong religious beliefs; for prayer in school 190 Other broad philosophy--conservative GROUP REFERENCES - PARTY SEEN AS GOOD FOR, HELPING, GIVING SPECIAL ADVANTAGE TO: 200 Everybody; nobody; no catering to special interests, "people" (the majority) 210 WORKING OR LITTLE PEOPLE; the common (poor, lowly) people, the working class; "average man" 212 People LIKE ME; people like us 220 Unions, "LABOR", labor leaders 230 BIG BUSINESS; industry, "business(men)", Wall Street (except small businessman, code 240); agribusiness/large farming businesses 231 RICH PEOPLE; upper classes; wealthy (powerful) people 240 SMALL BUSINESSMEN 250 MIDDLE CLASS people; white collar people 260 FARMERS 270 BLACKS 280 OTHER RACIAL AND ETHNIC groups 281 The SOUTH, some portion of the south 282 The NORTH, some portion of the north 283 White PEOPLE, white people only 284 MINORITIES, minority groups (NA which) 285 OLD people 286 THE educated, intellectuals, students 290 Other groups - GENERAL PARTY DIFFERENCES FOR GROUPS: 299 Group differences codeable in 200 or 300 series--NA which - PARTY SEEN AS BAD FOR, ANTI, KEEPING IN CHECK, PUTTING IN PLACE: 300 Divisive (sets class against class, caters to special interests (NA what), plays group politics, not for all the people; (Dems/Reps) ONLY FOR THEMSELVES 310 WORKING OR LITTLE PEOPLE; the common (poor, lowly) people, the working class; "average man" 312 People LIKE ME; people like us 320 Unions, "LABOR", labor leaders 330 BIG BUSINESS; industry, "business(men)", Wall Street (except small businessman, code 340) 331 RICH PEOPLE; upper classes; wealthy (powerful) people) 340 SMALL BUSINESSMEN 350 MIDDLE CLASS people; white collar people 360 FARMERS 370 BLACKS 371 Racist, prejudiced, bigoted 380 Other racial and ethnic groups; "MINORITY GROUPS" other or not specified 381 The SOUTH, some portion of the south 382 The NORTH, some portion of the north 383 WHITE people, white people only 384 MINORITIES, minority groups (NA which) 385 OLD people 386 The EDUCATED, intellectuals, students 390 Other groups DOMESTIC POLICY REFERENCES - FISCAL POLICY--EASY SPENDING RESPONSES 400 SPEND MORE FREELY/high spenders (NFS) 401 Spend much relative to what is accomplished; WASTEFUL, not careful with spending 402 Spend much relative to money available; spend us DEEPER IN DEBT; DEFICIT SPENDING 403 Spend under special circumstances, such as hard times 404 Bring cheap money; more money circulating 405 Other easy spending response 406 RAISE TAXES--NFS; keep taxes high; seek to increase government revenues 407 Increase INCOME TAXES; will not cut income taxes; rely on increase in/high income tax to provide government revenues - FISCAL POLICY--CAUTIOUS SPENDING RESPONSES 500 SPEND LESS FREELY; economy in government (NFS) 501 Spend little relative to what is accomplished; less wasteful/more careful with government (taxpayers') money 502 Spend little relative to money available; REDUCE DEBT, keep debt from getting higher, BALANCED BUDGET 503 Spend little even when special circumstances might warrant 504 For sound money/tight money, deflation 505 Other cautious spending response 506 CUT TAXES--NFS; keep taxes low; seek to decrease government revenues 507 Cut INCOME TAXES; will not increase income taxes; rely on taxes other than income tax to provide government revenue - FISCAL POLICY--GENERAL SPENDING RESPONSES 591 General mention of taxes--neutral or NA direction 599 General mention of spending--neutral or NA direction - ASSOCIATION OF PARTY WITH GOOD/POSITIVE DOMESTIC SITUATIONS 411 Responsible promised (NA what); restraint on promises, realistic, doesn't promise too much 412 Don't have (too much) government control over the economy; or lets BUSINESS GET MORE INVOLVED/handle problems of poverty/unemployment, etc. 413 (GOOD) GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY, business 415 Good for the nation's economy--general positive reference 420 PROSPERITY in nation; good times for all, high national production, avoidance of depression, HIGH EMPLOYMENT 431 Price INFLATION HELD IN CHECK; lower cost of living 435 Propose/enact FAIR TAXES; believe everyone should be taxed the same/ that taxes should be even- handed. 436 Give tax breaks to the poor/working/middle class people; tax policies favor the lower/middle classes 440 LOCAL PERSONAL GOOD TIMES economically; head of family gets (keeps) better job (wages) when party is in power, family better off economically under this party (no direct government benefits like social security mentioned) 450 HONESTY AND INTEGRITY--characteristics of the party or administration (local or national), other similar characteristics of the party 451 One party has MORE EXPERIENCE, is better, smarter, more united 480 (Only) party has a philosophy/program/platform; stands for something 490 Other positive domestic associations 491 General mention of unemployment--neutral or NA direction 492 General mention of inflation--neutral or NA direction 493 General mention of economic policy/handling of the economy - GENERAL DOMESTIC POLICY RESPONSES 499 A domestic issue difference is cited which could be coded in the 400 or 500 series, but NA which - ASSOCIATION OF PARTY WITH BAD/NEGATIVE DOMESTIC SITUATIONS 511 IRRESPONSIBLE PROMISES (NA what); promises too much; unrealistic, pie-in-the sky; can't fulfill promises 512 Have (too much) govt control over the economy; or does not let business get more involved/handle problems of poverty/unemployment, etc. 513 (POOR) GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY 515 Bad for the nation's economy, general negative reference 520 Hard times, depression in nation, much unemployment, low (over) production 531 Create/does not control price INFLATION; high cost of living in nation 535 Propose/enact UNFAIR TAXES; show favoritism/give tax breaks to certain groups or types of people 536 Give tax breaks to the wealth/corporations; tax policies favor the rich/powerful/upper classes 540 LOCAL/PERSONAL HARD TIMES economically; head of family gets laid off (poorer wages) when party is in power; family worse off economically under this party 550 Dishonesty/corruption (nepotism, graft, patronage) of party or administration (local or national); other similar characteristics of the party; Watergate 551 One party has LESS EXPERIENCE/is worse/not as smart; party is not (is less) unified 580 Party has no philosophy/programs/platform; doesn't stand for anything 590 Other negative domestic association with party - SPECIFIC DOMESTIC POLICIES FAVORED BY PARTY 600 MINIMUM WAGE legislation; favors raising minimum wage, or favors raising UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 601 Social Security; government pension raises 610 MEDICAL (HEALTH) INSURANCE; medical card for aged; socialized medicine; medicare 612 HOUSING; aid to the homeless 620 Government CONTROL OF UTILITIES; more attention to conservation; public works; mention of ecology, environment 630 Federal AID TO EDUCATION/school-building; teachers' pay higher 631 BUSING; forced integration 632 OTHER FED. CONTROL OF EDUCATION/schools response; school choice plans 634 Gun control 640 CIVIL RIGHTS; insist more strongly on civil rights 641 LAW AND ORDER--HARD LINE (or NA line); wants a police state; support death penalty (88) 642 LAW AND ORDER--SOFT LINE; oppose death penalty (88) 643 PROPERTY RIGHTS; open housing 644 Policies which would DIVIDE COUNTRY; have civil war; race war 650 Higher TARIFFS; less free trade 660 "Wet" legislation; ANTI-PROHIBITION 670 General mention of SOCIAL WELFARE; "GIVE AWAY PROGRAMS" 671 POVERTY program 672 EMPLOYMENT (JOB) TRAINING PROGRAMS, Job Corps, etc. 680 FARM policy 681 Abortion 682 Women's rights; ERA 683 Legalization of marijuana; (more) lenient drug laws 684 Homosexual/gay rights 690 Other specific domestic policy favored - SPECIFIC DOMESTIC POLICIES--NEUTRAL OR NA DIRECTION 605 Minimum WAGE or unemployment compensation 606 SOCIAL SECURITY; government pension 615 MEDICAL (HEALTH) INSURANCE; medical card for aged; socialized medicine; medicare 617 HOUSING; aid to the homeless 625 Government CONTROL OF UTILITIES; CONSERVATION; public works; ecology, environment 635 Federal AID TO EDUCATION; school choice plans 636 BUSSING; forced integration 637 Other federal control of education or schools response 639 Gun control 645 CIVIL RIGHTS (legislation) 646 LAW AND ORDER--HARD LINE (or NA line); death penalty (88) 647 LAW AND ORDER--SOFT LINE; death penalty (88) 648 PROPERTY RIGHTS; open housing 649 Policies which would DIVIDE COUNTRY; have civil war; race war 655 Higher TARIFFS; free trade 665 Prohibition; "dry"/"wet" legislation 675 General mention of SOCIAL WELFARE; "give away programs" 676 POVERTY program 677 EMPLOYMENT (JOB) TRAINING programs, Job Corps, etc. 685 FARM policy 686 ABORTION 687 Women's rights; ERA 688 Legalization of marijuana; lenient drug laws 689 Homosexual/GAY RIGHTS 695 Domestic issues difference, but NA which - SPECIFIC DOMESTIC POLICIES OPPOSED BY PARTY 700 MINIMUM WAGE or UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION; won't raise minimum wage, won't improve unemployment compensation 701 SOCIAL SECURITY; against raising benefits 710 MEDICAL (HEALTH) INSURANCE; against medical card for aged; against socialized medicine, medicare 712 HOUSING; aid to the homeless 720 Government CONTROL OF UTILITIES; for private power; less interested in conservation; public works; mention of ecology, environment 730 Federal AID TO EDUCATION; against or drag feet on aid to education 731 BUSSING; forced integration 732 OTHER FEDERAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION or schools response; school choice plans 734 Gun control 740 CIVIL RIGHTS; against or drag feet on civil rights legislation; leave it to states 741 Following a tough or HARD LINE IN MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER/prevention of crime, etc.; police state; imposing the death penalty (88) 742 Following a SOFT LINE IN MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER/prevention of crime, etc.; imposing the death penalty (88) 743 PROPERTY RIGHTS; open housing 744 Policies which would DIVIDE COUNTRY; have civil war; race war; want to unite the country 750 High TARIFFS; want free trade 760 Repeal; WANT PROHIBITION; "dry" 770 General mention of SOCIAL WELFARE; "GIVE AWAY PROGRAMS" 771 POVERTY program 772 EMPLOYMENT (JOB) TRAINING programs, Job Corps, etc. 780 FARM policy 781 Abortion 782 Women's rights; ERA 783 Legalization of marijuana; lenient drug laws 784 Homosexual/gay rights 790 Other specific domestic policy opposed FOREIGN POLICY REFERENCES 800 WAR; get us into war (faster); party associated with war; militarist 810 PEACE; more likely to keep peace; party associated with peace 820 INTERNATIONALIST; more for foreign aid, government activities abroad; cooperate with allies, U.N.; "more for foreign aid/trade" 825 Foreign aid/trade, NA direction 830 ISOLATIONIST; avoid foreign activities; cut foreign aid (military or economic); "cut foreign aid/trade" 840 NATIONAL SECURITY; for strong national defense (spending); strong (firm) (too aggressive) posture toward communism (Russia); too much defense spending 845 National defense--general, NA or neutral direction 850 INADEQUATE NATIONAL SECURITY; fail to maintain (spend for) defense; weak posture toward communism (Russia) 860 Specific TROUBLE SPOTS 870 CONTROL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS 880 Strong FOREIGN POLICY 881 Weak foreign policy 884 SPACE; space policy 890 Other foreign policy--other substantive foreign policy mentions (direction of response usually indicated) 891 Mention of "foreign policy" difference but no substance or direction given (e.g., usual response is "the two parties or candidates differ on foreign policy, on how they will handle foreign policy") MISCELLANEOUS AND NO PARTY DIFFERENCES RESPONSES 900 Miscellaneous other party differences 901 (Only) one party is more successful than the others; wins elections; is (is not) majority party, etc. 902 (Only) one party is less successful than the others; doesn't win elections much; is the minority party 910 PERSONALITY/CANDIDATE ONLY MENTIONS--candidate is dangerous, fanatic, aggressive, courageous, honest, untrustworthy, impulsive, outspoken, firm, dishonest, negative, lack of integrity, bad politician, etc. (but code 371 racist, prejudiced, bigoted) 920 Reference to probable inability to get things done, e.g., gain congressional support 930 LEADERSHIP MENTIONS--a good (bad) leader, is head of the party must specifically mention the candidate as leader or head of the party), or one party has better leadership than another 980 The parties are different; EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM IS DIFFERENT (NA what the differences are) NO DIFFERENCE ("NO" OR "DK") 991 There used to be differences, but not now 992 Indicate dissatisfaction with the lack of differences 993 Favorable to both parties, e.g., both parties are seeking to serve the people 994 Indicates that individual candidates are more important than parties anyhow 995 Unfavorable to both parties, e.g., both parties are just after money 996 On variation within parties 997 Other comments 998 DK (Code in 1st var only) 999 NA (Code in 1st var only) 000 No party differences ("No" or "DK" and no further comment); no further second or third differences >> MASTER CODE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY BALLOT CARDS BY STATE (1992) BALLOT CARD FOR ALABAMA Candidates for the June 2nd Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush H. Ross Perot (write-in) H. Ross Perot (write-in) Other Uncommitted Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR ARIZONA Candidates for the March 7th Caucus Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. No Caucus or Primary Bill Clinton Tom Harkin Paul Tsongas Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR ARKANSAS Candidates for the May 26th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Lyndon H. LaRouche H. Ross Perot (write-in) H. Ross Perot (write-in) Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR CALIFORNIA Candidates for the June 2nd Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas H. Ross Perot (write-in) H. Ross Perot (write-in) Unc/Other BALLOT CARD FOR COLORADO Candidates for the March 3rd Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Tom Harkin Other Bob Kerry Paul E. Tsongas Others/Unc BALLOT CARD FOR CONNECTICUT Candidates for the March 24th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas David Duke Other Uncommitted Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR FLORIDA Candidates for the March 10th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. George Bush Bill Clinton Patrick J. Buchanan Tom Harkin Paul E. Tsongas Other BALLOT CARD FOR GEORGIA Candidates for the March 3rd Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Tom Harkin Bob Kerry Paul E. Tsongas Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR ILLINOIS Candidates for the March 17th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas Others Uncommitted Others BALLOT CARD FOR INDIANA Candidates for the May 5th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Bob Kerrey Paul E. Tsongas BALLOT CARD FOR IOWA Candidates for the February 10th Caucus Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. Brown Jr. George Bush Bill Clinton Uncommitted Tom Harkin Bob Kerrey Paul E. Tsongas Others Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR KANSAS Candidates for the April 7th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas David Duke Others Others Uncommitted Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR KENTUCKY Candidates for the May 26th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. George Bush Bill Clinton Uncommitted Paul E. Tsongas H. Ross Perot (write-in) H. Ross Perot (write-in) Others Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR LOUISIANA Candidates for the March 10th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Pat Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Tom Harkin David Duke Paul E. Tsongas Other Other BALLOT CARD FOR MARYLAND Candidates for the March 3rd Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Tom Harkin Bob Kerry Paul E. Tsongas Others BALLOT CARD FOR MASSACHUSETTS Candidates for the March 10th Primary Democrats Republicans -------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Pat Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Tom Harkin David Duke Paul E. Tsongas Other Other Uncommitted Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR MICHIGAN Candidates for the March 17th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Tom Harkin David Duke Bob Kerry Uncommitted Paul E. Tsongas Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR MINNESOTA Candidates for the April 7th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas Harold E. Stassen Uncommitted/Others Uncommitted/Others BALLOT CARD FOR MISSOURI March 10th Caucus April 14th Caucus Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. George Bush Bill Clinton Pat Buchanan Paul E. Tsongas Uncommitted Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR NEBRASKA Candidates for the May 12th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown, Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas David Duke H. Ross Perot (write-in) H. Ross Perot (write-in) Other Other Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE Candidates for the February 18th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. Brown Jr. George Bush Bill Clinton Patrick J. Buchanan Tom Harkin Jim Lennane Bob Kerrey Bill Clinton (Write-in) Tom Laughlin Ralph Nader (Write-in) Paul E. Tsongas Paul E. Tsongas (Write-in) Charles Woods (Others) Mario M. Cuomo (Write-in) Ralph Nader (Write-in) Others BALLOT CARD FOR NEW JERSEY Candidates for the June 2nd Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas H. Ross Perot (write-in) H. Ross Perot (write-in) Unc/Other BALLOT CARD FOR NEW MEXICO Candidates for the June 2nd Primary Democrats Republican --------- ---------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas H. Ross Perot (write-in) H. Ross Perot (write-in) Uncommitted Unc/other BALLOT CARD FOR NEW YORK Candidates for the April 7th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown No Primary Bill Clinton Paul E. Tsongas Others BALLOT CARD FOR NORTH CAROLINA Candidates for the May 5th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas No Preference Others No Preference BALLOT CARD FOR OHIO Candidates for the June 2nd Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas H. Ross Perot (write-in) H. Ross Perot (write-in) Unc/Other BALLOT CARD FOR OREGON Candidates for the May 19th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas David Duke H. Ross Perot (write-in) H. Ross Perot (write-in) Others BALLOT CARD FOR PENNSYLVANIA Democrats: April 28th Primary Reps: April 28th Caucus ----------------------------- ----------------------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas Others BALLOT CARD FOR TENNESSEE Candidates for the March 10th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Pat Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Tom Harkin David Duke Paul E. Tsongas Uncommitted Other Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR TEXAS Candidates for the March 10th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Pat Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Tom Harkin David Duke Paul E. Tsongas Other Other BALLOT CARD FOR VIRGINIA Democrats: Apr. 11, 13 Caucuses Republicans: No Caucus ------------------------------ ---------------------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Bill Clinton Uncommitted BALLOT CARD FOR WASHINGTON Candidates for the May 19th Primary Democrats Republicans ---------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas David Duke H. Ross Perot (write-in) Steven Michael Others H. Ross Perot (write-in) BALLOT CARD FOR WEST VIRGINIA Candidates for the May 12th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Angus McDonald Jack Fellure Paul E. Tsongas H. Ross Perot (write-in) H. Ross Perot (write-in) Others BALLOT CARD FOR WISCONSIN Candidates for the April 7th Primary Democrats Republicans --------- ----------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Patrick J. Buchanan Bill Clinton George Bush Paul E. Tsongas David Duke Other Uncommitted Uncommited BALLOT CARD FOR WYOMING Democrats: March 7 Caucus ------------------------- Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. Bill Clinton Tom Harkin Paul E. Tsongas Uncommitted Republicans: March 7-31 Caucuses -------------------------------- George Bush Uncommitted >> MASTER CODE TYPE OF RACE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT RUNNING 12 Democratic incumbent running -- REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER 13 Democratic incumbent running -- OTHER CHALLENGER 14 Democratic incumbent running -- UNOPPOSED 19 Democratic incumbent running -- REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CHALLENGERS REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT RUNNING 21 Republican incumbent running -- DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGER 23 Republican incumbent running -- OTHER CHALLENGER 24 Republican incumbent running -- UNOPPOSED 29 Republican incumbent running -- DEMOCRATIC AND OTHER CHALLENGERS OTHER INCUMBENT RUNNING 31 Other incumbent running -- DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGER 32 Other incumbent running -- REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER 34 Other incumbent running -- UNOPPOSED NO INCUMBENT RUNNING 51 Democratic incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 52 Democratic incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 53 Democratic incumbent not running -- OTHER CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 55 Democratic incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES 56 Democratic incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES 57 Democratic incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND OTHER CANDIDATES 59 Democratic incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES 61 Republican incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 62 Republican incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 63 Republican incumbent not running -- OTHER CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 65 Republican incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES 66 Republican incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES 67 Republican incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND OTHER CANDIDATES 69 Republican incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES 71 Other incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 72 Other incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 73 Other incumbent not running -- OTHER CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 75 Other incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES 76 Other incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES 77 Other incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND OTHER CANDIDATES 79 Other incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES SENATE DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT RUNNING 12 Democratic incumbent running -- REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER 13 Democratic incumbent running -- OTHER CHALLENGER 14 Democratic incumbent running -- UNOPPOSED 19 Democratic incumbent running -- REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CHALLENGERS REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT RUNNING 21 Republican incumbent running -- DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGER 23 Republican incumbent running -- OTHER CHALLENGER 24 Republican incumbent running -- UNOPPOSED 29 Republican incumbent running -- DEMOCRATIC AND OTHER CHALLENGERS OTHER INCUMBENT RUNNING 31 Other incumbent running -- DEMOCRATIC CHALLENGER 32 Other incumbent running -- REPUBLICAN CHALLENGER 34 Other incumbent running -- UNOPPOSED NO INCUMBENT RUNNING 51 Democratic incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 52 Democratic incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 53 Democratic incumbent not running -- OTHER CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 55 Democratic incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES 56 Democratic incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES 57 Democratic incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND OTHER CANDIDATES 59 Democratic incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES 61 Republican incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 62 Republican incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 63 Republican incumbent not running -- OTHER CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 65 Republican incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES 66 Republican incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES 67 Republican incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND OTHER CANDIDATES 69 Republican incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES 71 Other incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 72 Other incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 73 Other incumbent not running -- OTHER CANDIDATE UNOPPOSED 75 Other incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES 76 Other incumbent not running -- REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES 77 Other incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND OTHER CANDIDATES 79 Other incumbent not running -- DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN AND OTHER CANDIDATES NO RACE IN STATE 81 DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENTS, no race in state 82 REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS, no race in state 85 DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS, no race in state >> MASTER CODE CITY CODE This list was developed from the 1973 WORLD ALMANAC AND BOOK OF FACTS, pp. 152-188 (1970 population figures). - The first four digits are a unique code number for each city. - The fifth digit is the urbanicity code for each city, as used in the 1971 Quality of Life study: 1 = City of over 1,000,000 2 = City of over 25,000 and up to 250,000 in an SMSA of 1,000,000 or more[1] 3 = City of under 25,000 in an SMSA of 1,000,000 or more 4 = City of over 250,000 and up to 1,000,000 5 = City of over 50,000 and up to 250,000 not in SMSA of 1,000,000 or more 6 = City of 50,000 or less not in SMSA of 1,000,000 or more 9 = NA [1] The two 1970 STANDARD CONSOLIDATED AREAS (New York-Northeastern New Jersey, and Chicago, Ill.-Northwestern Indiana), the remaining 1970 SMCA's of one millian or more, plus the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, CA SMSA (which was attached to the Los Angeles SMSA). Asterisk (*) indicates place added in 1982 (having population of 25,000+ in 1980 census) coded on basis of 1970 status in area. (See example Chandler, Arizona -- it's SMSA was not over one million in 1970, so coded 6 here. This was done to avoid glaring inconsistencies in adjacent areas. The areas affected by this decision are the four places where the population of the SMSA topped the one million mark between 1970 and 1980 (Phoenix, Arizona; San Antonio, Texas; Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, Florida; Sacramento, California). ALABAMA (141) 0001 6 Anniston 0015 6 Auburn * 0002 6 Bessemer 0003 4 Birmingham 0004 6 Decatur 0005 6 Dothan 0006 6 Florence 0007 5 Gadsden 0008 5 Huntsville 0009 5 Mobile 0010 5 Montgomery 0011 6 Phoenix City 0012 6 Prichard 0013 6 Selma 0014 5 Tuscaloosa ALASKA (180) 0100 6 Anchorage ARIZONA (161) 0208 6 Chandler * 0200 6 Flagstaff 0201 6 Glendale 0202 5 Mesa 0203 4 Phoenix 0204 5 Scottsdale 0209 6 Sun City * 0205 5 Tempe 0206 4 Tuscon 0207 6 Yuma ARKANSAS (142) 0300 6 Blytheville 0301 6 El Dorado 0302 6 Fayetteville 0303 5 Fort Smith 0304 6 Hot Springs 0310 6 Jacksonville * 0305 6 Jonesboro 0306 5 Little Rock 0307 5 North Little Rock 0308 5 Pine Bluff 0309 5 West Memphis CALIFORNIA (171) 0400 2 Alameda 0401 2 Alhambra 0402 2 Altadena 0403 2 Anaheim 0404 2 Antioch 0405 2 Arcadia 0406 5 Arden-Arcade 0407 2 Azusa 0408 5 Bakersfield 0409 2 Baldwin Park 0557 2 Bell * 0410 2 Bellflower 0411 2 Bell Gardens 0412 2 Belmont 0413 2 Berkeley 0414 2 Beverly Hills 0558 2 Brea * 0415 2 Buena Park 0416 2 Burbank 0417 2 Burlingame 0559 6 Camarillo * 0418 2 Campbell 0560 2 Carlsbad * 0419 6 Carmichael 0420 2 Carson 0421 2 Castro Valley 0561 2 Cerritos * 0562 6 Chico * 0563 2 Chino * 0422 2 Chula Vista 0564 6 Citrus Heights * 0423 2 Claremont 0565 6 Clovis * 0424 2 Compton 0425 2 Concord 0426 2 Corona 0427 2 Costa Messa 0428 2 Covina 0429 2 Culver City 0566 2 Cupertino * 0430 2 Cypress 0431 2 Daly City 0567 2 Danville * 0432 6 Davis 0568 2 Diamond Bar * 0433 2 Downey 0434 2 East Los Angeles 0435 2 El Cajon 0436 2 El Cerrito 0437 2 El Monte 0569 2 El Toro * 0438 2 Escondido 0439 6 Eureka 0440 6 Fairfield 0441 2 Florence-Graham 0570 2 Fontana * 0442 2 Fountain Valley 0443 2 Fremont 0444 5 Fresno 0445 2 Fullerton 0446 2 Gardena 0447 2 Garden Grove 0448 2 Glendale 0449 2 Glendora 0450 2 Hacienda Heights 0451 2 Hawthorne 0452 2 Hayward 0453 2 Huntington Beach 0454 2 Huntington Park 0455 2 Inglewood 0571 2 Irvine * 0572 2 Laguna Hills * 0456 2 La Habra 0457 2 Lakewood 0458 2 La Mesa 0459 2 La Mirada 0460 2 Lancaster 0461 2 La Puenta 0462 2 Lawndale 0463 2 Livermore 0464 6 Lodi 0465 6 Lompoc 0466 4 Long Beach 0467 2 Los Altos 0468 1 Los Angeles 0469 2 Los Gatos 0470 2 Lynwood 0471 2 Manhatten Beach 0573 6 Manteca * 0573 6 1992: Manteca * 0472 2 Menlo Park 0574 6 Merced * 0473 2 Milpitas 0575 2 Mission Viejo * 0474 5 Modesto 0475 2 Monrovia 0476 2 Montebello 0477 6 Monterey 0478 2 Monterey Park 0479 2 Mountain View 0480 6 Napa 0481 2 National City 0482 2 Newark 0483 2 Newport Beach 0484 6 North Highlands 0485 2 Norwalk 0486 2 Novato 0487 4 Oakland 0488 2 Oceanside 0489 2 Ontario 0490 2 Orange 0491 5 Oxnard 0492 2 Pacifica 0576 2 Palm Springs * 0493 2 Palo Alto 0494 2 Palos Verdes Peninsula 0495 2 Paramount 0496 6 Parkway-Sacramento South 0497 2 Pasadena 0498 6 Petaluma 0499 2 Pico Rivera 0577 2 Pittsburg * 0578 2 Placentia * 0500 2 Pleasant Hill 0579 2 Pleasanton * 0501 2 Pomona 0580 2 Poway * 0502 6 Rancho Cordova 0581 2 Rancho Cucamonga * 0582 2 Rancho Palos Verdes * 0583 6 Redding * 0503 2 Redlands 0504 2 Redondo Beach 0505 2 Redwood City 0506 2 Rialto 0507 2 Richmond 0508 2 Riverside 0509 2 Rosemead 0584 2 Rowland Heights * 0510 4 Sacramento 0511 5 Salinas 0512 2 San Bernardino 0513 2 San Bruno 0514 2 San Carlos 0585 2 San Clemente * 0515 4 San Diego 0516 4 San Francisco 0517 2 San Gabriel 0518 4 San Jose 0519 2 San Leandro 0520 2 San Lorenzo 0521 6 San Luis Obispo 0522 2 San Mateo 0523 2 San Rafael 0524 2 Santa Ana 0525 5 Santa Barbara 0526 2 Santa Clara 0527 6 Santa Cruz 0528 6 Santa Maria 0529 2 Santa Monica 0530 5 Santa Rosa 0586 2 Santee * 0531 2 Saratoga 0532 2 Seal Beach 0533 6 Seaside 0534 5 Simi Valley 0535 2 South Gate 0536 2 South San Francisco 0537 2 South Whittier 0538 2 Spring Valley 0539 5 Stockton 0540 2 Sunnyvale 0541 2 Temple City 0542 6 Thousand Oaks 0543 2 Torrance 0587 6 Turlock * 0588 2 Tustin * 0544 2 Tustin-Foothills 0589 2 Union City * 0545 2 Upland 0590 6 Vacaville * 0546 5 Vallejo 0547 5 Ventura 0548 6 Visalia 0549 2 Vista 0550 2 Walnut Creek 0551 2 West Covina 0552 2 West Hollywood 0553 2 Westminster 0554 9 Westmont 0555 2 Whittier 0556 2 Willowbrook 0591 6 Woodland * 0592 2 Yorba Linda * COLORADO (162) 0600 2 Arvada 0601 2 Aurora 0602 2 Boulder 0603 5 Colorado Springs 0604 4 Denver 0605 2 Englewood 0606 6 Fort Collins 0613 6 Grand Junction * 0607 6 Greeley 0608 2 Lakewood 0609 2 Littleton 0614 2 Longmont * 0615 6 Loveland * 0610 9 North Glenn 0611 5 Pueblo 0616 2 Southglen * 0617 2 Thornton * 0618 2 Westminster * 0612 2 Wheat Ridge CONNECTICUT (101) 0700 5 Bridgeport 0701 5 Bristol 0702 5 Danbury 0703 5 East Hartford 0704 6 East Haven 0705 6 Enfield 0706 5 Fairfield 0707 5 Greenwich 0708 6 Groton 0709 6 Hamden 0710 5 Hartford 0711 6 Manchester 0712 5 Meriden 0713 6 Middletown 0714 5 Milford 0734 6 Naugatuck * 0715 5 New Britain 0716 5 New Haven 0717 6 Newington 0718 6 New London 0719 5 Norwalk 0720 6 Norwich 0721 6 Shelton 0722 6 Southington 0723 5 Stamford 0724 6 Stratford 0725 6 Torrington 0726 6 Trumball 0727 6 Vernon 0728 6 Wallingford 0729 5 Waterbury 0730 5 West Hartford 0731 5 West Haven 0732 6 Westport 0733 6 Wethersfield 0735 6 Windsor * DELAWARE (111) 0801 6 Newark * 0800 5 Wilmington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (155) 0900 4 Washington FLORIDA (143) 1000 6 Boca Raton 1032 6 Boynton Beach * 1033 6 Bradenton * 1034 6 Cape Coral * 1001 2 Carol City 1002 2 Clearwater 1003 2 Coral Gables 1035 6 Coral Springs * 1004 6 Daytona Beach 1036 6 Deerfield Beach * 1037 6 Delray Beach * 1038 2 Dunedin * 1005 5 Fort Lauderdale 1007 6 Fort Myers 1008 6 Fort Pierce 1009 5 Gainsville 1039 6 Hallandale * 1010 2 Hialeah 1011 5 Hollywood 1012 4 Jacksonville 1040 2 Kendale Lakes * 1013 2 Kendall 1014 6 Key West 1015 6 Lakeland 1041 6 Lake Worth * 1042 2 Largo * 1043 6 Lauderdale Lakes * 1044 6 Lauderhill 1045 6 Margate * 1016 6 Melbourne 1017 6 Merritt Island 1018 4 Miami 1019 2 Miami Beach 1046 6 Miramar * 1020 2 North Miami 1021 2 North Miami Beach 1047 6 Ocala * 1048 2 Olympia Heights * 1022 5 Orlando 1023 6 Panama City 1049 6 Pembroke Pines * 1024 5 Pensacola 1050 6 Pine Hills * 1051 2 Pinellas Park * 1052 6 Plantation * 1025 6 Pompano Beach 1053 6 Port Charlotte * 1054 6 Riviera Beach * 1026 2 St. Petersburg 1027 6 Sarasota 1055 6 Sunrise * 1028 5 Tallahassee 1056 2 Tamarac * 1029 4 Tampa 1030 6 Titusville 1057 2 Town 'N' country * 1058 2 Westchester * 1059 2 West Little River * 1031 5 West Palm Beach GEORGIA (144) 1100 5 Albany 1101 6 Athens 1102 4 Atlanta 1103 5 Augusta 1113 2 Candler-Mcafee * 1104 5 Columbus 1105 2 East Point 1106 6 Fort Benning 1114 2 Mableton * 1107 5 Macon 1108 2 Marietta 1115 2 North Atlanta * 1109 6 Rome 1116 2 Sandy Springs * 1110 5 Savannah 1117 6 South Augusta * 1118 2 Tucker * 1111 6 Valdosta 1112 6 Warner Robins HAWAII (181) 1205 6 Aiea * 1200 6 Hilo 1201 4 Honolulu 1202 6 Kailua 1203 6 Kanoehe 1206 6 Pearl City * 1204 6 Waipahu IDAHO (163) 1300 5 Boise City 1301 6 Idaho Falls 1302 6 Lewiston 1304 6 Nampa * 1303 6 Pocatello 1305 6 Twin Falls * ILLINOIS (121) 1400 2 Addison 1401 2 Alton 1402 2 Arlington Heights 1403 2 Aurora 1404 2 Belleville 1405 2 Berwyn 1406 6 Bloomington 1461 2 Bolingbrook * 1407 2 Burbank 1408 2 Calumet City 1462 6 Carbondale * 1409 2 Carpentersville 1410 5 Champaign 1411 1 Chicago 1412 2 Chicago Heights 1413 2 Cicero 1414 6 Danville 1415 5 Decatur 1463 6 Dekalb * 1416 2 Des Plaines 1417 2 Dolton 1418 2 Downers Grove 1419 2 East St. Louis 1420 2 Elgin 1464 2 Elk Grove * 1421 2 Elmhurst 1422 2 Elmwood Park 1423 2 Evanston 1424 2 Evergreen Park 1425 6 Freeport 1426 6 Galesburg 1427 2 Glenview 1428 2 Granite City 1465 2 Hanover Park * 1429 2 Harvey 1430 2 Highland Park 1466 2 Hoffman Estates * 1431 2 Joliet 1432 6 Kankakee 1433 2 Lansing 1434 2 Lombard 1435 2 Maywood 1436 6 Moline 1437 2 Morton Grove 1438 2 Mount Prospect 1467 2 Naperville * 1439 2 Niles 1440 6 Normal 1441 2 Northbrook 1442 2 North Chicago 1468 2 Oak Forest * 1443 2 Oak Lawn 1444 2 Oak Park 1445 2 Palatine 1446 2 Park Forest 1447 2 Park Ridge 1448 6 Pekin 1449 5 Peoria 1450 6 Quincy 1451 6 Rantoul 1452 5 Rockford 1453 5 Rock Island 1469 2 Shaumburg * 1454 2 Skokie 1470 2 South Holland * 1455 5 Springfield 1471 2 Tinley Park * 1456 6 Urbana 1457 2 Villa Park 1458 2 Waukegan 1459 2 Wheaton 1460 2 Wilmette INDIANA (122) 1500 5 Anderson 1501 6 Bloomington 1502 6 Columbus 1503 2 East Chicago 1504 6 Elkhart 1505 5 Evansville 1506 5 Fort Wayne 1507 2 Gary 1508 2 Hammond 1509 2 Highland 1510 4 Indianapolis 1511 6 Kokomo 1512 6 Lafayette 1521 2 Lawrence * 1513 6 Marion 1522 2 Merrillville * 1514 6 Michigan City 1515 6 Mishawaka 1516 5 Muncie 1517 6 New Albany 1523 2 Portage * 1518 6 Richmond 1519 5 South Bend 1520 5 Terre Haute IOWA (131) 1600 6 Ames 1616 6 Bettendorf * 1601 6 Burlington 1602 6 Cedar Falls 1603 5 Cedar Rapids 1604 6 Clinton 1605 5 Council Bluffs 1606 5 Davenport 1607 5 Des Moines 1608 5 Dubuque 1609 6 Fort Dodge 1610 6 Iowa City 1611 6 Marshalltown 1612 6 Mason City 1613 6 Ottumwa 1614 5 Sioux City 1615 5 Waterloo KANSAS (132) 1710 6 Emporia * 1700 6 Hutchinson 1701 2 Kansas City 1702 6 Lawrence 1703 6 Leavenworth 1704 6 Manhattan 1711 2 Olathe * 1705 2 Overland Park 1706 2 Prairie Village 1707 6 Salina 1712 2 Shawnee * 1708 5 Topeka 1709 4 Witchita KENTUCKY (151) 1800 6 Ashland 1801 6 Bowling Green 1802 2 Covington 1803 6 Fort Knox 1811 6 Frankfort * 1812 6 Henderson * 1813 6 Hopkinsville * 1804 5 Lexington-Fayette 1805 4 Louisville 1806 2 Newport 1807 5 Owensboro 1808 6 Paducah 1809 6 Pleasure Ridge Park 1810 6 Valley Station LOUISIANA (145) 1900 6 Alexandria 1901 5 Baton Rouge 1902 6 Bossier City 1914 2 Chalmette * 1903 2 Gretna 1904 6 Houma 1905 2 Kenner 1906 5 Lafayette 1907 5 Lake Charles 1908 2 Marrero 1909 2 Metairie 1910 5 Monroe 1911 6 New Iberia 1912 4 New Orleans 1913 5 Shreveport 1915 2 Slidell * MAINE (102) 2000 6 Auburn 2001 6 Bangor 2002 6 Lewiston 2003 5 Portland MARYLAND (152) 2100 2 Annapolis 2123 2 Aspen Hill * 2101 4 Baltimore 2102 2 Bethesda 2103 2 Bowie 2104 2 Catonsville 2105 2 Chillum 2106 2 College Park 2124 2 Columbia * 2107 6 Cumberland 2108 2 Dundalk 2109 2 Essex 2125 6 Frederick * 2126 2 Gaithersburg 2110 2 Glen Burnie 2111 6 Hagerstown 2112 9 Hillcrest Heights 2127 2 Lochearn * 2113 2 Lutherville-Timonium 2128 2 Middle River * 2129 2 Oxen Hill * 2114 2 Parkville 2115 2 Pikesville 2130 2 Potomac * 2116 2 Randallstown 2117 2 Rockville 2131 2 Security * 2118 2 Silver Spring 2119 2 Suitland-Silver Hills 2120 2 Towson 2121 2 Wheaton-Glenmont MASSACHUSETTS (103) 2260 6 Agawam * 2200 6 Amherst 2201 6 Andover 2202 2 Arlington 2203 6 Attleboro 2261 6 Barnstable * 2204 2 Belmont 2205 2 Beverly 2206 6 Bilerica 2207 4 Boston 2208 2 Braintree 2209 5 Brockton 2210 2 Brookline 2211 2 Cambridge 2212 6 Chelmsford 2213 2 Chelsea 2214 5 Chicopee 2215 2 Danvers 2216 2 Dedham 2217 2 Everett 2218 5 Fall River 2219 6 Fitchburg 2220 2 Framingham 2221 6 Gloucester 2222 6 Havershill 2223 5 Holyoke 2224 5 Lawrence 2225 6 Leominster 2226 2 Lexington 2227 5 Lowell 2228 5 Lynn 2229 2 Malden 2230 6 Marlborough 2231 2 Medford 2232 2 Melrose 2233 6 Methuen 2234 2 Milton 2235 2 Natick 2236 2 Needham 2237 5 New Bedford 2238 2 Newton 2239 6 Northampton 2240 2 Norwood 2241 2 Peabody 2242 5 Pittsfield 2262 6 Plymouth * 2243 2 Quincy 2244 2 Randolph 2245 2 Revere 2246 2 Salem 2247 2 Saugus 2248 2 Somerville 2249 5 Springfield 2263 2 Stoughton * 2250 2 Tauton 2251 2 Wakefield 2252 2 Waltham 2253 2 Watertown 2254 2 Wellesley 2255 6 Westfield 2256 6 West Springfield 2257 2 Weymouth 2258 2 Woburn 2259 5 Worcester MICHIGAN (123) 2300 2 Allen Park 2301 5 Ann Arbor 2345 2 Avon Twp. * 2302 6 Battle Creek 2303 6 Bay City 2304 2 Birmingham 2346 2 Bloomfield Twp. * 2347 6 Burton * 2348 2 Clinton Twp * 2305 2 Dearborn 2306 2 Dearborn Heights 2307 1 Detroit 2308 2 East Detroit 2309 6 East Lansing 2349 2 Farmington Hills * 2310 2 Ferndale 2311 5 Flint 2312 2 Garden City 2313 5 Grand Rapids 2314 2 Hamtramck 2315 2 Highland Park 2316 6 Holland 2317 2 Inkster 2318 6 Jackson 2319 5 Kalamazoo 2350 6 Kentwood * 2320 5 Lansing 2321 2 Lincoln Park 2322 2 Livonia 2323 2 Madison Heights 2324 6 Midland 2325 6 Muskegon 2326 2 Oak Park 2327 2 Pontiac 2328 6 Portage 2329 6 Port Huron 2351 2 Redford Twp. * 2352 2 Romulus * 2330 2 Roseville 2331 2 Royal Oak 2332 5 Saginaw 2333 2 St. Clair Shores 2334 2 Southfield 2335 2 Southgate 2336 2 Sterling Heights 2337 2 Taylor 2338 2 Trenton 2339 2 Troy 2340 2 Warren 2353 2 Waterford * 2354 2 West Bloomfield Twp. * 2341 2 Westland 2342 2 Wyandotte 2343 5 Wyoming 2344 6 Ypsilanti MINNESOTA (133) 2400 6 Austin 2423 2 Blaine * 2401 2 Bloomington 2402 2 Brooklyn Center 2403 6 Brooklyn Park 2424 2 Burnsville * 2404 2 Coon Rapids 2405 2 Crystal 2406 5 Duluth 2407 2 Edina 2408 2 Fridley 2409 2 Golden Valley 2410 6 Mankato 2411 9 Maplewood 2412 4 Minneapolis 2413 2 Minnetonka 2414 6 Moorhead 2425 2 Plymouth * 2415 2 Richfield 2416 5 Rochester 2417 2 Roseville 2418 6 St. Cloud 2419 2 St. Louis Park 2420 4 St. Paul 2421 2 South St. Paul 2422 6 Winona MISSISSIPPI (146) 2500 6 Biloxi 2501 6 Columbus 2502 6 Greenville 2503 6 Gulfport 2504 6 Hattiesburg 2505 5 Jackson 2506 6 Laurel 2507 6 Meridian 2508 6 Pascagoula 2509 6 Vicksburg MISSOURI (134) 2600 2 Affton 2620 2 Blue Springs * 2601 6 Cape Girardeau 2602 5 Columbia 2603 2 Ferguson 2604 2 Florissant 2605 6 Fort Leonard Wood 2621 2 Gladstone * 2606 2 Independence 2607 6 Jefferson City 2608 4 Joplin 2609 4 Kansas City 2610 2 Kirkwood 2622 2 Lee's Summit * 2611 2 Lemay 2612 2 Overland 2613 2 Raytown 2614 2 St. Charles 2615 5 St. Joseph 2616 4 St. Louis 2617 5 Springfield 2618 2 University City 2619 2 Webster Groves MONTANA (164) 2700 5 Billings 2703 6 Butte-Silver Bow * 2701 5 Great Falls 2702 6 Missoula NEBRASKA (135) 2800 6 Grand Island 2801 5 Lincoln 2802 4 Omaha NEVADA (165) 2905 6 Carson City * 2900 5 Las Vegas 2901 6 North Las Vegas 2902 6 Paradise 2903 5 Reno 2904 6 Sparks 2906 6 Sunrise Manor * NEW HAMPSHIRE (104) 3000 6 Concord 3001 5 Manchester 3002 5 Nashua 3003 6 Portsmouth NEW JERSEY (112) 3100 6 Atlantic City 3101 2 Bayonne 3102 2 Belleville 3103 2 Bergenfield 3104 2 Bloomfield 3105 6 Brick Twp. 3106 2 Camden 3107 2 Cherry Hill Twp. 3108 2 Clifton 3109 2 Cranford Twp. 3110 2 Deptford Twp. 3111 2 East Brunswick Twp. 3112 2 East Orange 3113 2 Edison Twp. 3114 2 Elizabeth 3115 2 Englewood 3116 9 Ewing Twp. 3117 2 Fair Lawn 3118 6 Fort Dix 3119 2 Fort Lee 3120 2 Garfield 3121 2 Hackensack 3122 2 Hoboken 3123 2 Irvington 3124 4 Jersey City 3125 2 Kearny 3126 2 Linden 3127 2 Livingston Twp. 3128 2 Lodi 3129 6 Long Branch 3130 2 Maplewood Twp. 3131 2 Mercerville-Hamilton Sq. 3132 5 Middletown Twp. 3133 2 Montclair 3134 5 Neptune Twp. 3135 4 Newark 3136 2 New Brunswick 3137 9 New Hanover 3138 2 North Bergen Twp. 3139 2 Nutley 3140 2 Old Bridge 3141 2 Orange 3142 2 Paramus 3163 2 Parsippany--Troy Hills * 3143 2 Passaic 3144 2 Paterson 3145 2 Pennsauken Twp. 3146 2 Perth Amboy 3147 2 Piscataway Twp. 3148 2 Plainfield 3149 2 Rahway 3150 2 Ridgewood 3151 2 Sayreville 3152 2 Teaneck Twp. 3153 5 Trenton 3154 2 Union Twp. 3155 2 Union City 3156 6 Vineland 3157 2 Wayne Twp. 3158 2 Westfield 3159 2 West New York 3160 5 West Orange 3161 2 Willingboro Twp. 3162 2 Woodbridge Twp. NEW MEXICO (166) 3200 5 Albuquerque 3207 6 Carlsbad * 3201 6 Clovis 3208 6 Farmington * 3202 6 Hobbs 3203 6 Las Cruces 3204 6 Roswell 3205 6 Santa Fe 3206 6 South Valley NEW YORK (113) 3300 5 Albany 3301 6 Amsterdam 3302 6 Auburn 3303 2 Baldwin 3304 5 Binghampton 3305 2 Brentwood 3354 6 Brighton * 3306 4 Buffalo 3355 2 Centereach * 3307 2 Central Islip 3356 2 Cheektowaga * 3308 2 Commack 3309 2 Deer Park 3357 2 Dix Hills * 3310 2 East Meadow 3311 6 Elmira 3312 2 Elmont 3313 2 Franklin Square 3314 2 Freeport 3315 2 Garden City 3316 2 Glen Cove 3317 2 Hempstead 3318 2 Hicksville 3319 2 Huntington Station 3358 6 Irondeqoit * 3320 6 Ithaca 3321 6 Jamestown 3322 6 Kingston 3323 2 Lackawanna 3359 2 Lake Ronkonkoma * 3324 2 Levittown 3325 2 Lindenhurst 3326 2 Lockport 3327 2 Long Beach 3328 2 Massapequa 3329 2 Merrick 3330 2 Mount Vernon 3331 6 Newburgh 3332 2 New City 3333 2 New Rochelle 3334 1 New York 3335 2 Niagara Falls 3336 2 North Babylon 3360 2 North Bay Shore * 3337 2 North Tonawanda 3338 2 Oceanside 3339 2 Plainview 3340 2 Port Chester 3341 6 Poughkeepsie 3342 4 Rochester 3343 2 Rockville Centre 3344 5 Rome 3345 6 Rotterdam 3346 5 Schenectady 3361 2 Smithtown * 3347 5 Syracuse 3362 2 Tonawanda * 3348 5 Troy 3349 5 Utica 3350 2 Valley Stream 3351 6 Watertown 3363 2 West Babylon * 3364 2 West Islip * 3365 2 West Senaca * 3352 2 White Plains 3353 2 Yonkers NORTH CAROLINA (147) 3400 5 Asheville 3401 6 Burlington 3402 6 Camp Lejeune 3403 6 Chapel Hill 3404 5 Charlotte 3405 5 Durham 3406 5 Fayetteville 3407 6 Fort Bragg 3408 6 Gastonia 3409 6 Goldsboro 3410 5 Greensboro 3411 6 Greenville 3412 5 High Point 3413 6 Kannapolis 3419 6 Kinston * 3414 5 Raleigh 3415 6 Rocky Mount 3416 6 Wilmington 3417 6 Wilson 3418 5 Winston-Salem NORTH DAKOTA (136) 3500 6 Bismarck 3501 5 Fargo 3502 6 Grand Forks 3503 6 Minot OHIO (124) 3600 4 Akron 3601 6 Alliance 3602 6 Athens 3603 6 Austintown 3604 6 Barberton 3651 6 Beavercreek * 3605 6 Boardman 3652 6 Bowling Green * 3606 2 Brook Park 3653 2 Brunswick * 3607 5 Canton 3608 4 Cincinnati 3609 4 Cleveland 3610 2 Cleveland Heights 3611 4 Columbus 3612 6 Cuyahoga Falls 3613 5 Dayton 3654 2 Delhi Hills 3614 2 East Cleveland 3615 5 Elyria 3616 2 Euclid 3617 6 Fairborn 3655 6 Fairfield * 3618 6 Findlay 3619 2 Garfield Heights 3620 5 Hamilton 3656 6 Huber Heights * 3621 6 Kent 3622 5 Kettering 3623 2 Lakewood 3624 6 Lancaster 3625 5 Lima 3626 5 Lorain 3627 5 Mansfield 3628 2 Maple Heights 3629 6 Marion 3630 6 Massillon 3631 2 Mentor 3632 6 Middletown 3633 6 Newark 3634 2 North Olmsted 3635 2 Norwood 3636 2 Parma 3637 9 Parma Heights 3638 6 Portsmouth 3639 6 Sandusky 3640 2 Shaker Heights 3641 2 South Euclid 3642 5 Springfield 3643 6 Steubenville 3657 6 Stow * 3658 2 Strongsville * 3644 4 Toledo 3645 2 Upper Arlington 3646 5 Warren 3647 2 Whitehall 3648 2 Xenia 3649 5 Youngstown 3650 6 Zanesville OKLAHOMA (153) 3700 6 Bartlesville 3712 6 Broken Arrow * 3701 6 Del City 3713 6 Edmond * 3702 6 Enid 3703 5 Lawton 3704 6 Midwest City 3714 6 Moore * 3705 6 Muskogee 3706 5 Norman 3707 4 Oklahoma City 3708 6 Ponca City 3709 6 Shawnee 3710 6 Stilwater 3711 4 Tulsa OREGON (172) 3806 6 Albany * 3807 2 Beaverton * 3800 6 Corvallis 3801 5 Eugene 3808 2 Gresham * 3809 2 Hazelwood * 3810 2 Hillsboro * 3802 6 Medford 3803 4 Portland 3804 5 Salem 3805 6 Springfield PENNSYLVANIA (114) 3928 2 Abington Twp. * 3900 5 Allentown 3901 5 Altoona 3902 9 Baldwin 3929 2 Bensalem Twp. * 3903 2 Bethel Park 3904 5 Bethlehem 3930 2 Bristol Twp. * 3931 2 Cheltenham * 3905 2 Chester 3906 6 Easton 3907 5 Erie 3932 2 Falls Twp. * 3908 5 Harrisburg 3933 2 Haverford Twp. * 3909 6 Hazleton 3910 6 Johnstown 3911 5 Lancaster 3912 6 Lebanon 3934 2 Lower Merion Twp. * 3935 2 Mccandless Twp. * 3913 2 Mckeesport 3914 2 Monroeville 3936 2 Mount Lebanon * 3915 6 New Castle 3916 2 Norristown 3937 2 Penn Hills * 3917 1 Philadelphia 3918 4 Pittsburgh 3938 2 Plum * 3919 2 Pottstown 3939 2 Radnor Twp. * 3920 5 Reading 3940 2 Ridley Twp. * 3941 2 Ross Twp. * 3921 5 Scranton 3942 2 Shaler Twp. * 3943 2 Springfield * 3922 6 State College 3944 2 Upper Darby * 3945 2 Upper Merion * 3946 2 Upper Moreland Twp. * 3947 2 Warminster * 3923 2 West Mifflin 3924 5 Wilkes-Barre 3925 2 Wilkinsburg 3926 6 Williamsport 3927 5 York RHODE ISLAND (105) 4012 6 Coventry * 4000 5 Cranston 4001 6 Cumberland 4002 6 East Providence 4003 6 Middletown 4004 6 Newport 4005 6 North Kingstown 4006 6 North Providence 4007 5 Pawtucket 4008 5 Providence 4009 5 Warwick 4010 6 West Warwick 4011 6 Woonsocket SOUTH CAROLINA (148) 4100 6 Anderson 4101 5 Charleston 4102 5 Columbia 4103 6 Florence 4104 5 Greenville 4108 6 North Charleston * 4105 6 Rock Hill 4106 6 Spartanburg 4107 6 Sumter SOUTH DAKOTA (137) 4200 6 Aberdeen 4201 6 Rapid City 4202 5 Sioux Falls TENNESSEE (154) 4300 5 Chattanooga 4301 6 Clarksville 4310 6 Cleveland * 4311 6 Columbia * 4312 6 Hendersonville * 4302 6 Jackson 4303 6 Johnson City 4304 6 Kingsport 4305 5 Knoxville 4306 4 Memphis 4307 6 Murfeesboro 4308 4 Nashville-Davidson 4309 6 Oak Ridge TEXAS (149) 4400 5 Abilene 4401 5 Amarillo 4402 5 Arlington 4403 4 Austin 4404 2 Baytown 4405 5 Beaumont 4406 6 Big Spring 4407 5 Brownsville 4408 6 Bryan 4447 2 Carrollton * 4448 6 College Station * 4409 5 Corpus Christi 4410 4 Dallas 4449 6 Del Rio * 4411 6 Denison 4412 2 Denton 4450 2 Duncanville * 4413 4 El Paso 4414 2 Farmers Branch 4415 9 Fort Hood 4416 4 Fort Worth 4417 5 Galveston 4418 2 Garland 4419 2 Grand Prairie 4420 6 Haltom City 4421 6 Harlingen 4422 1 Houston 4423 6 Hurst 4424 2 Irving 4425 6 Killeen 4426 6 Kingsville 4427 5 Laredo 4428 6 Longview 4429 5 Lubbock 4451 6 Lufkin * 4430 6 Mcallen 4431 2 Mesquite 4432 5 Midland 4452 6 Nocogdoches * 4453 2 North Richland Hills * 4433 5 Odessa 4454 6 Paris * 4434 2 Pasadena 4455 2 Plano * 4435 5 Port Arthur 4436 2 Richardson 4437 5 San Angelo 4438 4 San Antonio 4439 6 Sherman 4440 6 Temple 4441 6 Texarkana 4442 6 Texas City 4443 5 Tyler 4444 6 Victoria 4445 5 Waco 4446 5 Wichita Falls UTAH (167) 4500 6 Bountiful 4501 6 East Millcreek 4506 6 Logan * 4507 6 Murray * 4502 5 Ogden 4503 6 Orem 4504 5 Provo 4505 5 Salt Lake City 4508 6 Sandy City * 4509 6 West Jordan * 4510 6 West Valley * VERMONT (106) 4600 6 Burlington VIRGINIA (140) 4700 2 Alexandria 4701 2 Annandale 4702 2 Arlington 4718 2 Blacksburg * 4719 2 Burke * 4703 6 Charlottesville 4704 5 Chesapeake 4720 2 Dale City * 4705 6 Danville 4706 5 Hampton 4707 9 Jefferson 4708 5 Lynchburg 4721 2 Mclean * 4709 5 Newport News 4710 4 Norfolk 4711 6 Petersburg 4712 5 Portsmouth 4722 2 Reston * 4713 4 Richmond 4714 5 Roanoke 4715 6 Staunton 4723 6 Suffolk * 4724 6 Tuckahoe * 4716 5 Virginia Beach 4725 2 West Springfield * 4717 2 Woodbridge-Marumsco WASHINGTON (173) 4815 2 Auburn * 4800 2 Bellevue 4801 6 Bellingham 4802 6 Bremerton 4803 2 Edmonds 4804 2 Everett 4805 6 Fort Lewis 4816 6 Kennewick * 4806 9 Lakes District 4807 6 Longview 4817 6 Olympia * 4808 2 Renton 4809 6 Richland 4810 4 Seattle 4811 5 Spokane 4812 2 Tacoma 4813 5 Vancouver 4818 6 Walla Walla * 4814 6 Yakima WEST VIRGINIA (156) 4900 5 Charleston 4901 6 Fairmont 4902 5 Huntington 4903 6 Morgantown 4904 6 Parkersburg 4905 6 Weirton 4906 6 Wheeling WISCONSIN (125) 5000 5 Appleton 5001 6 Beloit 5002 2 Brookfield 5003 6 Eau Claire 5004 6 Fond Du Lac 5005 5 Green Bay 5006 2 Greenfield 5007 6 Janesville 5008 5 Kenosha 5009 5 La Crosse 5010 5 Madison 5011 6 Manitowoc 5012 2 Menomonee Falls 5013 4 Milwaukee 5014 2 New Berlin 5015 5 Oshkosh 5016 5 Racine 5017 6 Sheboygan 5018 6 Superior 5019 2 Waukesha 5020 6 Wausau 5021 2 Wauwatosa 5022 2 West Allis WYOMING (168) 5100 6 Casper 5101 6 Cheyenne >> MASTER CODE CPS 2-DIGIT OCCUPATION CODE (1996) 1980 Census Book Reference Code PROFESSIONAL, TECHNICAL AND KINDRED WORKERS (023-024, 026-027, 034, 035-036, 038-234) 10. Physicians -- medical, psychiatric and (084, 085) osteopathic; dentists 11. Other medical and paramedical (except health (086-089, 095- technicians -- see 16:) chiropractors, optometrists 106) chiropractors, optometrists, pharmacists, veterinarians, dieticians, registered nurses, etc. 12. Accountants; Auditors (023) 13. Teachers, except college (155-159) 14. Teachers, college; social scientists; librarians (113-154, 164-173) 15. Architects; chemists; engineers; physical and (043-059, 069-078) biological scientists 16. Technicians: computer programmers and analysts; (063-068, 083,185, health, engineering, science, and other technicians; 189, 203-208) designers; radio and television announcers; dental hygienists, practical nurses, etc. 17. Public advisors: personnel and labor relations workers (026, 027, 034, clergy and other religious workers, social and 174-177, 195, recreation workers, editors and reporters, public 197) relations persons, etc. 18. Judges; lawyers (178, 179) 19. Other professional, technical, and kindred workers (024, 183, 184, 186-188, 193, 193, 194, 198 199) MANAGERS, OFFICIALS, AND PROPRIETORS (EXCEPT FARM) (003-019, 025, 028-033, 037,243) 20. Not self-employed; employee of own corporation (003-019, 025, 028-033, 037,243) 31. Self-employed -- unincorporated businesses (003-019, 025 028-033, 037,243) CLERICAL AND KINDRED WORKERS (303-389) 40. Secretaries, stenographers, typists (313-315) 41. Other clerical workers: bank tellers, bookkeepers, (303-309, 316- estimators and investigators, mail carriers, payroll 389) and postal clerks, shipping and receiving clerks, stock clerks, etc. SALES WORKERS (253-285) 45. Demonstrators, hucksters and peddlers, insurance and (253-285) real estate agents and brokers, sales representatives and sales clerks, cashiers, etc. CRAFTSMEN, FOREMEN AND KINDRED WORKERS (413-424,485, 494, 503-699, 803, 843,863) 50. Foremen, not elsewhere classifiable, except craft (485, 494, 803, 843, 863) 51. Craftsmen, craft foremen and supervisors (503-699) 52. Government protective service workers: firemen, guards, (413-424) policemen, etc. OPERATIVES AND KINDRED WORKERS (703-859) 61. Transport equipment operatives: bus drivers, (804-859) conductors, deliverymen and routemen, fork lift and tow motor operatives, taxicab drivers, truck drivers, etc. 62. Operatives, except transport (703-799) LABORERS AND FARM FOREMEN (477-499,864- 889) 70. Unskilled laborers -- non-farm (864-889) 71. Farm laborers and foremen (477-499) SERVICE WORKERS (403-407, 425- 427, 433-469) 73. Private household workers (403-407) 75. Other service workers: maids, cleaners, janitors, (425-427, 433- bartenders, cooks, waiters, nursing aides, barbers, 469) babysitters, (except 73), beauticians, etc. FARMERS AND FARM MANAGERS (473-476) 80. Farmers (owners and tenants) and farm managers (473-476) MISCELLANEOUS GROUPS 55. Members of armed forces (900) MASTER CODE RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION Codes followed by [1996] have been newly added in 1996. Codes followed by [1994] were added in 1994. GENERAL PROTESTANT 010. Protestant, no denomination given 020. Non-denominational Protestant 040. Inter-denominational Protestant 099. Christian (NFS); "just Christian" ADVENTIST 100. 7th Day Adventist 109. Adventist (NFS) ANGLICAN 110. Episcopalian; Anglican 111. Independent Anglican, Episcopalian [1994] BAPTIST 120. American Baptist Association 121. American Baptist Churches U.S.A. (inaccurately known as "Northern Baptist") 122. Baptist Bible Fellowship 123. Baptist General Conference 124. Baptist Missionary Association of America 125. Conservative Baptist Association of America 126. General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (G.A.R.B.) 127. National Association of Free Will Baptists (United Free Will Baptist Church) 128. Primitive Baptists 129. National Baptist Convention in the U.S.A. 130. National Baptist Convention of America 131. National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A. 132. Progressive National Baptist Convention 134. Reformed Baptist (Calvinist) 135. Southern Baptist Convention 147. Fundamental Baptist (no denom. ties) 148. Local (independent) Baptist churches with no denominational ties or links to a national fellowship 149. Baptist (NFS) CONGREGATIONAL 150. United Church of Christ (includes Congregational, Evangelical and Reformed) 155. Congregational Christian EUROPEAN FREE CHURCH (ANABAPTISTS) 160. Church of the Brethren 161. Brethren (NFS) 162. Mennonite Church 163. Moravian Church 164. Old Order Amish 165. Quakers (Friends) 166. Evangelical Covenant Church (not Anabaptist in tradition) 167. Evangelical Free Church (not Anabaptist in tradition) 168. Brethren in Christ 170. Mennonite Brethren HOLINESS 180. Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA) 181. Church of God (Anderson, IN) 182. Church of the Nazarene 183. Free Methodist Church 184. Salvation Army 185. Wesleyan Church 186. Church of God of Findlay, OH [1994] 199. Holiness (NFS); Church of God (NFS); R not or NA whether R Pentecostal or Charismatic INDEPENDENT-FUNDAMENTALIST 200. Plymouth Brethren 201. Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America 219. Independent-Fundamentalist (NFS) LUTHERAN 220. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (formerly Lutheran Church in America and The American Lutheran Church); ELCA 221. Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod; LC-MS 222. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; WELS 223. Other Conservative Lutheran 229. Lutheran (NFS) METHODIST 230. United Methodist Church; Evangelical United Brethren 231. African Methodist Episcopal Church 232. African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church 233. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church 234. Primitive Methodist [1994] 240. Congregational Methodist (fundamentalist)* 249. Methodist (NFS) PENTECOSTAL 250. Assemblies of God 251. Church of God (Cleveland, TN) 252. Church of God (Huntsville, AL) 253. International Church of the Four Square Gospel 124. Baptist Missionary Association of America 125. Conservative Baptist Association of America 126. General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (G.A.R.B.) 127. National Association of Free Will Baptists (United Free Will Baptist Church) 128. Primitive Baptists 129. National Baptist Convention in the U.S.A. 130. National Baptist Convention of America 131. National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A. 132. Progressive National Baptist Convention 134. Reformed Baptist (Calvinist) 135. Southern Baptist Convention 147. Fundamental Baptist (no denom. ties) 148. Local (independent) Baptist churches with no denominational ties or links to a national fellowship 149. Baptist (NFS) CONGREGATIONAL 150. United Church of Christ (includes Congregational, Evangelical and Reformed) 155. Congregational Christian EUROPEAN FREE CHURCH (ANABAPTISTS) 160. Church of the Brethren 161. Brethren (NFS) 162. Mennonite Church 163. Moravian Church 164. Old Order Amish 165. Quakers (Friends) 166. Evangelical Covenant Church (not Anabaptist in tradition) 167. Evangelical Free Church (not Anabaptist in tradition) 168. Brethren in Christ 170. Mennonite Brethren HOLINESS 180. Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA) 181. Church of God (Anderson, IN) 182. Church of the Nazarene 183. Free Methodist Church 184. Salvation Army 185. Wesleyan Church 186. Church of God of Findlay, OH 199. Holiness (NFS); Church of God (NFS); R not or NA whether R Pentecostal or Charismatic INDEPENDENT-FUNDAMENTALIST 200. Plymouth Brethren 201. Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America 219. Independent-Fundamentalist (NFS) LUTHERAN 220. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (formerly Lutheran Church in America and The American Lutheran Church); ELCA 221. Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod; LC-MS 222. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; WELS 223. Other Conservative Lutheran 229. Lutheran (NFS) METHODIST 230. United Methodist Church; Evangelical United Brethren 231. African Methodist Episcopal Church 232. African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church 233. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church 234. Primitive Methodist 240. Congregational Methodist (fundamentalist)* [1996] 249. Methodist (NFS) PENTECOSTAL 250. Assemblies of God 251. Church of God (Cleveland, TN) 252. Church of God (Huntsville, AL) 253. International Church of the Four Square Gospel 254. Pentecostal Church of God 255. Pentecostal Holiness Church 256. United Pentecostal Church International 257. Church of God in Christ (incl. NA whether 258) 258. Church of God in Christ (International) 260. Church of God of the Apostolic Faith 261. Church of God of Prophecy 262. Vineyard Fellowship [1994] 267. Apostolic Pentecostal 268. Spanish Pentecostal 269. Pentecostal (NFS); Church of God (NFS); R not or NA whether R Pentecostal or Charismatic PRESBYTERIAN 270. Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 271. Cumberland Presbyterian Church 272. Presbyterian Church in American (PCA) 275. Evangelical Presbyterian 276. Reformed Presbyterian [1994] 279. Presbyterian (NFS) REFORMED 280. Christian Reformed Church (inaccurately known as "Dutch Reformed") 281. Reformed Church in America 282. Free Hungarian Reformed Church 289. Reformed (NFS) RESTORATIONIST 290. Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 291. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ 292. Churches of Christ; "Church of Christ" (NFS) 293. Christian Congregation NON-TRADITIONAL PROTESTANTS 300. Christian Scientists 301. Mormons; Latter Day Saints 302. Spiritualists 303. Unitarian; Universalist 304. Jehovah's Witnesses 305. Unity; Unity Church; Christ Church Unity 306. Fundamentalist Adventist (Worldwide Church of God) 309. Non-traditional Protestant (NFS) ROMAN CATHOLIC 400. Roman Catholic JEWISH 500. Jewish, no preference 501. Orthodox 502. Conservative 503. Reformed EASTERN ORTHODOX (GREEK RITE CATHOLIC) 700. Greek Rite Catholic 701. Greek Orthodox 702. Russian Orthodox 703. Rumanian Orthodox 704. Serbian Orthodox 705. Syrian Orthodox 706. Armenian Orthodox 707. Georgian Orthodox 708. Ukranian Orthodox 719. Eastern Orthodox (NFS) NON-CHRISTIAN/NON-JEWISH 720. Muslim; Mohammedan; Islam 721. Buddhist 722. Hindu 723. Bahai 724. American Indian Religions (Native American Religions) 729. Other non-Christian/non-Jewish 790. Religious/ethical cults OTHER 800. Agnostics 801. Atheists 997. Other >> MASTER CODE Contact issue (1997 Pilot) Codes below were used for "what was the issue involved" follow-ups to contact with six categories of public officials and two questions on mobilization via direct mail and mass media advertising. Codes were applied for up to 3 mentions each: Health and Social Welfare 01. Social Security, saving Social Security. Help to get benefits. (All mentions of aid to the elderly except Medicaid.); Aged/Elderly mentions; retirement. 02. Medicaid/Medicare issues; saving the Medicare system. 03. Veterans Administration; benefits/issues. Getting help from the VA. 04. Welfare; getting public assistance; food stamps. 05. Availability of Medical Care; need for national health insurance; health issues. 06. Drugs; efforts against the spread of drugs; war on drugs. 07. Smoking/tobacco issues. Regulation of the industry; taxes on cigarettes. Support for the tobacco industry. 08. Pro-life issues; anti-abortion; anti partial-birth abortions. Right to life.; abortion, partial-birth abortions. 09. Abortion rights; pro partial-birth abortions; from Planned Parenthood. 10. Womens rights; ERA; equal pay in the workplace. 11. Gay/Lesbian rights. 12. Religious issues; religious rights or freedom. 13. Minority issues; affirmative action; minority rights. 14. Childrens issues; childrens welfare; child abuse; programs for at risk youth. 15. Rights of the disabled/handicapped. Economic/Employment Issues 20. Budget deficit; government spending; the Balanced Budget Amendment. 21. Taxes; taxes are too high; Tax credit for children/family. Tuition tax credits. 22. Deregulation of business/industry; airline, banking, telephone. Keeping prices low through competition. Anti-trust mentions; taxes on a specific industry (non-tobacco). 23. Unions; power and stature of unions (all mentions); labor issues; strikes. 24. Employment; how hard it is to find a job. 25. Work related; having to do with ones own job/business/industry. 26. Housing affordability; ability to get a mortgage. Other Specific Issues 40. Environmental; ecology; pollution. 41. Rapid transit. 42. Immigration; against foreigners taking jobs or being on welfare, etc. 43. English as national/state language. 44. Gun control. Brady Bill mentions; from the NRA. 45. Burning Flags; desecrating the flag. 46. Farm issues (all mentions). 47. Natural disaster relief. Help/aid from floods, hurricanes, etc. 48. Television content; what's on TV; harmful to young minds; children having access to the Internet. 49. Foreign Policy (all mentions). Foreign aid; international. All nations or hotspots; NAFTA; foreign trade; being in the UN. 50. Military/defense matters. Weapons; military budget (too much or too little). 51. Term limits. 52. Fine art funding. 53. Prayer in school. 54. Animal rights. 55. Police protection/Public Safety. 56. Fishing rights (between US and Canada). Boundary problem. 57. Casinos/gambling. The Indian casino. 58. Funding of money to city/state from federal government (NA what for). 59. Mandates to cities/states without funding (NA what for). Primarily Local Issues 70. Budgets; spending concerns (local only). 71. Education; need for better schools. (All mentions except sex education). 72. Sex education. 73. Local ordinances; signs, zoning, drainage, land use; growth management; Beautification laws; residency laws for employment. 74. Taxes (local level only). School or property taxes. 75. Better roads/ local infrastructure. 76. Community problems or issues- NA what. Community affairs. 77. Car insurance rates. 78. Tolls on freeways. 79. Local legislation; bill being passed (NA what). 80. Structure/function of local government. E.g. Village being annexed. Miscellaneous 90. Voting Record; what politician has done in the past (NA what). 91. For a flag; one that has flown over the Capitol. 92. Tour tickets; information on tourism. 93. Just to talk; touch base with representative or politician (NA on what). 94. Issues/topics (NA what). Unspecified. Current events.; or invitation to contact elected official; giving input (NA what); all mentions of surveys and questionnaires. 95. Elections/voting/campaigns; getting out the vote, (no issues mentioned). 96. Appointments made; (comments on individuals appointed.) 97. OTHER >> MASTER CODE GOVERNMENT WASTE (1997) General 01. Pork barrel legislation. Spending in one state to get votes for something else. Deal making. Trade-offs. 02. Building projects ( without mention of political deal making). Roads, infrastructure. 03. Overspending in general. Waste in general. (If say government or similar term code as government operations.) Social Welfare Programs; Education 10. Medicare or Medicaid. Medical assistance to the needy. 11. Welfare, Public assistance. Food stamps. Welfare to work program. All mentions of receiving assistance from the government. 12. Education (all mentions). Student loans; aid to education. 13. Housing/Urban Development. Housing assistance or subsidies. 14. Social programs, NFS. Liberal programs. Social concerns. 15. Affirmative Action/Minority rights programs. 16. Social Security. 17. Programs for Children. Other Specific Programs 20. Environmental programs, ecology, protecting nature, fighting pollution. 21. Space Projects. NASA. Putting things in space. 22. Funding for the Arts, PBS, NEA funding. 23. Research, studies, experiments (all mentions). 24. Farm subsidies; including the tobacco industry. 25. Prisoners (paying them); cost of incarceration. 26. Illegal immigrants; supporting them, giving them assistance. 27. Policies/Programs (NA what, but not social programs); subsidies (NA what). 28. War on drugs. 29. Law enforcement. War on crime, (all mentions non-drug related). 30. Taxes (all mentions). Government Operations 50. Government operations in general. The bureaucracy. Duplication of effort. Overspending for toilet seats, hammers. 51. Salaries; they get paid too much; giving themselves a raise. 52. Travel/junkets/perks (too many/too expensive). Eating out, limousines, luxuries, etc; pensions. 53. Cost of elections. 54. Government investigations. Investigating itself. Whitewater investigation. 55. Land management (with regard to mining, timber, cattle or other interests taking Advantage of the government). Defense; Foreign Affairs 60. Foreign aid, give away too much, take care of problems at home first. 61. Defense spending;spending on weapons; military budget is too high. Miscellaneous 70. Too much partying; socializing; celebrating. 71. Tax breaks to corporations. Government letting big business off. 72. What lobbyists/special interests want. (All mentions of waste because of lobbying or outside political pressure.) 73. Entitlements (no further explanations). 74. Corruption/Kickbacks/Patronage jobs. (All mentions of a criminal nature.) 75. Political Party fundraising. Fundraising. 97. Other >> MASTER CODE GROUP REFERENCES (1997 Pilot) 1997 C1/C1a GROUPS ('GROUPS THAT ARE LIKE R') -------- RELIGION -------- -CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS 10 Christian Coalition 11 Conservative Christian 12 Evangelicals; Evangelical Presbyterian church groups; Evangelical ministers 13 Born Again Christians -CHRISTIANS (NO FURTHER SPECIFICATION) 14 Christians; Christian people; Judeo-Christian beliefs; Christian families; Groups that believe in Christian value; Christian groups that believe the second coming is coming soon; Non-evangelical Christian See Also: 15 American Christians 16 Liberal Christian 17 Christian Friends 18 Christian Women -OTHER CHRISTIANS 19 (Other Protestants); Lutherans; Unitarian church; Protestant; Quakers See Also: 20 White Protestants 21 Catholics -OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS 22 Jews 23 Pagans -OTHER REFERENCES TO RELIGION OR CHURCH 25 (People in R's Church); Church friends; People that are in my church; People that go to my parish 26 Church Group; Church groups; Church (Note: This category differs from 25 in that R does not specifically state that the church group or church is R's own.) 27 (Other References to Religion or Church, no further specification); Religion groups; Church people; People of faith; People that go to church; The Church -------------- CLASS / INCOME -------------- -UPPER MIDDLE CLASS 30 Upper Middle Class; Affluent; Medium to upper income -MIDDLE CLASS 31 Middle Class; Financial the middle; Medium class; Middle income type of people; Middle class citizens; Middle class society See Also: 32 Middle Class America 33 Middle Class Whites 34 Middle Class White Americans -WORKING MIDDLE CLASS 36 Working Middle Class people; Middle class working See Also: 37 Middle Class Working Americans 38 Middle-Class Blue Collar Group; Upper blue collar middle class -LOWER MIDDLE CLASS 39 Lower Middle Class; Lower middle income. -WORKING CLASS / WORKING PEOPLE 40 Working Class; Working public; The working people; People that work everyday; Wage earners; The common worker; Normal everyday working group See Also: 41 Working Class Females 42 Working American 43 Middle Age Working Class America 126 Working parents 127 Working couples where both work outside of the home 130 Working mother 161 Blue Collar Workers -POOR PEOPLE 44 Poor People; People with low incomes; People with modest income; Underclass; Lower income; People without a whole lot of money 45 (People on welfare) -OTHER REFERENCES TO ECONOMIC STATUS 46 (Same income as R) 47 People Well paid 48 Homeowners 49 Taxpayers; Frustrated taxpayers; Taxpayers' association --------------------------------- POLITICAL IDEOLOGY / PARTISANSHIP --------------------------------- -PARTY IDENTIFICATION 50 Conservative Republicans; Right wing Republican 51 Republicans; The Republican Party 52 Moderate Republicans; Weak Republicans; Republican, but I don't agree with everything they say so I'm not strictly Republican 53 Conservative Democrat 54 Moderate Democrats 55 Democrats; Clinton supporters 56 Other Party References; The responsibility party; Independent party; Independents -IDEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION 57 Conservatives; Anyone who would have conservative ideas See Also: 58 White Conservative 59 Moderate Conservatives. 60 Moderates; I'm in the middle of the road; Not people with strong ideology 61 Less Conservative 62 Moderate Liberal; Somewhat liberal 63 Liberal -OTHER POLITICAL IDENTIFICATIONS 64 Angry White Male 65 The KKK, Christian Militia 66 Pro gun rights; NRA 67 Pro-life 68 Pro-choice 69 Feminist 70 Environmentalist; People interested in saving the different species of animals in rain forests...; Green party; conservation; Not polluting the air or environment; People that try to clean up the environment 71 Labor Unions; Trade unionist; Organized labor 73 (Political Participant); Activist; Trying to get involved; People who are trying to make a difference in their own small way; Volunteers; Supporters of causes 74 (General Reference to Political Groups, no further specification); Sometimes in social activities we speak about politics; Political 75 (Apolitical); People who don't care much about politics; Not political involved; People who are somewhat jaded by the way things are right now 76 (Patriot); People who care about the country --- AGE --- -YOUNG 80 Young People; Generation X; The 19-25 age group; People who are 25-30 See Also: 116 Caucasian Young Females 121 Young Marrieds 124 Young Parents -MIDDLE AGE 81 Middle Age; Baby Boomers; The yuppie-type age people between 35-45; The hippy generation; People in the forties, like my daughter See Also: 43 Middle age Working Class America 102 Middle Aged Caucasians 112 Middle Aged White Males -OLDER 82 (Pre-Boomers); 50 Something; Over age 55 See Also: 115 50-Something Women 83 Senior Citizens; Seniors; Older people; Elderly; Anyone who graduated from high schools in the 1930s See Also: 84 White Elderly Population 85 Older White Americans 86 Senior Community Complex 87 Retired people; AARP; People concerned with pensions -OTHER REFERENCE TO AGE 88 (Same age as R) --------- EDUCATION --------- 91 Less educated people; Not highly educated but not dumb 92 College groups; College students 93 Recent college graduates; Recent grads; Younger college educated people 94 Well-educated people; Educated; College educated; College grads; highly educated 95 (General reference to school and education); Students; Working to get education; School; Education 96 (Education-related issues); Education is very important; People interested in Education; Friends of education; PTA's; People interested in the schools ---------------- RACE / ETHNICITY ---------------- 100 Whites. See Also: 20 White Protestants 33 Middle Class Whites 34 Middle Class White Americans 58 White Conservative 64 Angry White Male 84 White Elderly Population 85 Older White Americans 101 Anglo Saxon White Americans 102 Middle aged Caucasians 103 Anglo Saxon 104 Irish 111 Caucasian Males 112 Middle Aged White Males 116 Caucasian Young Females 105 African Americans; Afro-Americans; Black 106 Hispanics; Latinos 107 (Asian Americans); The Asian Community 108 Native Americans 109 (Other References to Race); Multiracial --------------------------- GENDER / SEXUAL ORIENTATION --------------------------- -GENDER / SEXUAL ORIENTATION 110 Men See Also: 64 Angry White Male 111 Caucasian Males 112 Middle Aged White Males 113 Women See Also: 18 Christian Women 41 Working class females 114 Working Women; Professional working women; Career women 115 50-Something Women; Women 45-50; Older women; Women in menopause in their 50s 116 Caucasian Young Females 132 Single women 151 Business Women 117 Gay ------ FAMILY ------ -FAMILY 120 Married See Also: 121 Young Marrieds 122 Married Families 163 Housewife 123 Parents; People with families; Family groups; Couples who have children and families See Also: 122 Married Families 124 Young Parents; Young couples with children; Parents of school age children 125 Parents that take time off work to work with their kids 126 Working parents 128 Single Parents 129 Mothers 130 Working mother 131 Single mothers 127 Working couples where both work outside of the home; Couples where both people work 132 Single women -OTHER REFERENCES TO FAMILY 133 R's Family; Family members; My children 134 People who are family-oriented; Focus on the families ---------- OCCUPATION ---------- -PROFESSIONALS / MEDIA / TECHNOLOGY / BUSINESS 140 Professionals; Professional people with college education 141 White Collar Worker 142 Doctors 143 Engineers 144 Teachers; Professors; Educators 145 Entertainers and artists 146 News Commentators 147 Politicians 148 Technology Groups 149 Technical People; Professional technical people; Technical people with advanced degrees 150 Business People; People in the business world; Businessmen; Business groups; Chamber of Commerce; Business owners; Investors; Entrepreneurs See also: 151 Business Women 152 Small Businessperson; Small independent businessman 153 People in Real Estate 154 Salespeople -LAW ENFORCEMENT / FARMERS / CONSTRUCTION / BLUE COLLAR 155 Criminal Justice People 156 Farmers 157 Construction Workers 158 Truck Driver; People that make their living on the highway 159 Railroad 160 Military Personnel 161 Blue Collar Workers; High paid blue collar worker See Also: 38 Middle-Class Blue Collar Group -OTHER OCCUPATION REFERENCE 162 Self-employed 163 Housewife 164 Peace Corp volunteer --------- GEOGRAPHY --------- 170 Neighbors; My neighborhood; People in the neighborhood 171 Rural; Rural area people; The country people 172 Urban; The city; Inner city person 173 Suburban 174 (Reference to a State); Texans 175 People in my Community See Also: 86 Senior Community Complex -AMERICANS 176 (Reference to America or Americans); Middle American; Americans in general See Also: 15 American Christians 32 Middle Class America 34 Middle Class White Americans 37 Middle Class Working Americans 42 Working American. 43 Middle age Working Class America 85 Older White Americans 101 Anglo Saxon White Americans ----------------------------- HOBBIES / ACTIVITIES / SPORTS ----------------------------- 180 (Media-related Interests); Those who listen to radio part time; Newspaper readers; People who listen to public radio; NPR 181 (Reading-related Interests); Readers of science fiction; Interested in reading, fiction reading mainly; Literary group (like friends of the library) 182 (Sports Activities or Fans); Ohio State Football Fan; Golfing league; Bowling; Eastern Stars camping group; Sporting groups, hunting and fishing 183 (Arts-related Interests); Actively involved in the theater; Music and theater; People who are interested in the arts 184 (Other group activities); Masonic Fraternity; Health (food groups); Woman's club group; Luncheon groups; Men's group; Cooking groups; Veterans group that is non political 185 (Traveling); World travelers ------------------------- PEOPLE R HAS CONTACT WITH ------------------------- 190 Friends; Close friends See Also: 17 Christian friends. 191 Co-workers; People that I work [with]; My office mate 192 (Other Contact references); People I associate with; People I come in contact with day by day; Most people you deal with; I'm comfortable with everybody I talk to, I can talk to the highest and lowest in life, doesn't make any difference to me; People that I talk to from all age groups and financial backgrounds ------------------- PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES ------------------- 200 Hard-working / Financially motivated; People who have had a rough time in life, really worked for what they have; People who want a high quality of life; Trying to get out of welfare; The ones that work hard but get little reward in the end 201 Independent thinkers; Rugged individualist 202 Realists; More down to earth 203 Optimists; People that try to have a positive attitude toward life; Positive thinking group 204 People with morals; Traditional 205 (Other Personal Attributes); Open-minded people; Easy-going; Creative; Artistic; Caring; Honest people; Well-informed intelligent people ----- OTHER ----- 210 Average / Common Person; Plain down to earth person; Joe average; Just everyday people; Middle group; Just regular people like me 220 Many Groups or People; A lot of groups; About half the people...most of the people 230 None, No groups. 998 Don't Know. 999 No Answer, Refused.