DOC

Table 1 Perceptions of Budget Deficit by Party Identification, 1996

By Sarah Ward,2014-04-05 22:03
8 views 0
Table 1 Perceptions of Budget Deficit by Party Identification, 1996

    Table 1: Perceptions of Budget Deficit by Party Identification, 1996

    “Would you say that the size of the yearly budget deficit increased, decreased, or stayed about the

    same during Clinton’s time as President? Would you say it has increased [decreased] a lot or a little?

     1992 1992 1992

     Democrats Independents Republicans Total

    6.7% 15.8% 22.6% 14.8% Increased a lot (?50)

    25.6% 22.1% 29.7% 25.2% Increased a little (?25)

    28.5% 29.7% 23.5% 27.7% Stayed about the same (0)

    32.0% 24.2% 20.4% 25.6% Decreased a little (+25)

    7.3% 8.1% 3.8% 6.7% Decreased a lot (+50)

    185 235 156 576 N

    Source: 1992-94-96 NES panel.

    Table 2: Perceptions of National Economy by Party Identification, 1996

    How about the economy? Would you say that over the past year the nation’s economy has gotten better, stayed the same or gotten worse? Would you say much better [worse] or somewhat

    better [worse]?

     1992 1992 1992

     Democrats Independents Republicans Total

    12.4% 5.0% 4.1% 7.1% Much better (?50)

    38.6% 36.2% 28.4% 34.9% Somewhat better (?25)

    36.0% 46.2% 47.1% 43.2% Stayed the same (0)

    9.7% 9.5% 18.3% 11.8% Somewhat worse (+25)

    3.3% 3.0% 2.2% 2.9% Much worse (+50)

    188 244 159 591 N

    Source: 1992-94-96 NES panel.

Table 3: Partisanship, Political Information, and Perceptions of Budget Deficit and

    National Economy, 1996

Least squares regression parameter estimates (with standard errors in parentheses) for non-linear

    model of inference:

     DPerception = A + Partisanship /(B+B/Age+B/Information) + (Reality)*C*Information 012D /(1 + 1/(B+B/Age+B/Information) + C*Information 012

     Perceived Budget Deficit Perceived National Economy

     1992 1996 1992 1996

     Partisanship Partisanship Partisanship Partisanship

     Prior Belief

    ?10.11 ?13.03?5.83?3.26A

    (2.11) (1.55) (2.78) (1.91)

     Partisan Inference

     ?2.98.02?1.83.04B 0(2.02) (1.51) (1.09) (1.01)

     212.190.3?20.0?33.3B 1(112.6) (64.1) (13.6) (20.4)

     1.07.702.561.66B 2(.92) (.55) (.87) (.50)

     Information

    1.45 1.545.983.56C

    (.57) (.42) (2.28) (.94)

    8.21 8.592.622.34D

    (2.69) (1.95) (.68) (.52)

    27.47 28.45 20.12 20.51 Std err of reg 2.13 .14 .26 .21 R

    576 1261 591 1304 N

Source: 1992-94-96 NES panel.

Table 4: The Impact of Watergate Attitudes on the Issue Perceptions and

    Preferences of Well-Informed Respondents, 1972-76

Errors-in-variables regression parameter estimates (with standard errors in parentheses) for

    respondents in the top one-third of the distribution of political information. Dependent

    variables are 1976 perceived issue proximities (?50 = closer to Republican Party; +50 =

    closer to Democratic party) and issue positions (?50 = extreme conservative; +50 = extreme

    liberal).

    Liberal-Government School Rights of Aid to Weighted

    conservative jobs busing accused minorities average

     Perceived issue proximity

    .153 .060 .174 .180 .080 .134 Watergate

    (.061) (.079) (.083) (.064) (.073) (.070) attitudes

    .108 .059.027.044.049.0561972 party

    (.043) (.048) (.044) (.035) (.036) (.040) identification

    .648 .829.490.627.855.6481972 issue

    (.095) (.152) (.096) (.127) (.139) (.113) proximity

    ?7.50 ?5.41?5.04?4.21?2.99?5.13Intercept

    (1.57) (2.28) (2.44) (1.61) (1.83) (1.83)

    13.02 14.97 16.07 12.38 13.29 --- Std err of reg 2.54 .44 .31 .40 .45 --- R

    316 309 279 268 313 --- N

     Issue positions

    .085 .228.125.161.077.122Watergate

    (.063) (.104) (.064) (.110) (.101) (.078) attitudes

    .017 .100?.040?.165?.018?.0171972 party

    (.038) (.056) (.036) (.059) (.047) (.044) identification

    .850 .458.807.897.840.7751972 issue

    (.062)(.070)(.042)(.091)(.074)(.059) position

    ?7.38 ?12.13?7.67?9.40?8.00?8.43Intercept

    (1.60) (2.71) (2.21) (2.64) (2.36) (2.13)

    13.34 23.97 15.63 24.29 20.98 --- Std err of reg 2.66 .29 .63 .42 .48 --- R

    325 348 356 344 353 --- N

    Source: 1972-74-76 NES panel.

Table 5: The Impact of Watergate Attitudes on the Issue Perceptions and

    Preferences of Uninformed Respondents, 1972-76

Errors-in-variables regression parameter estimates (with standard errors in parentheses) for

    respondents in the bottom two-thirds of the distribution of political information. Dependent

    variables are 1976 perceived issue proximities (?50 = closer to Republican Party; +50 =

    closer to Democratic party) and issue positions (?50 = extreme conservative; +50 = extreme

    liberal).

    Liberal-Government School Rights of Aid to Weighted

    conservative jobs busing accused minorities average

     Perceived issue proximity

    .032 .049?.131.041.004.008Watergate

    (.054) (.057) (.066) (.050) (.051) (.055) attitudes

    .163 .091.206.102.129.1371972 party

    (.043) (.051) (.045) (.037) (.036) (.041) identification

    .590 .491.467.447.397.4811972 issue

    (.116) (.117) (.096) (.127) (.128) (.114) proximity

    ?.87 ?1.413.71?.52?1.33?.40Intercept

    (1.47) (1.54) (1.79) (1.24) (1.29) (1.42)

    13.81 16.39 15.54 13.14 13.43 --- Std err of reg 2.42 .24 .32 .22 .19 --- R

    286 323 268 275 303 --- N

     Issue positions

    ?.085 .040 .078 .076 .155 .044 Watergate

    (.061) (.076) (.055) (.079) (.077) (.067) attitudes

    .079 .098 ?.021 ?.061 .006 .024 1972 party

    (.039) (.054) (.040) (.056) (.054) (.046) identification

    .832 .660.830.881.705.7741972 issue

    (.096) (.074) (.069) (.078) (.068) (.075) position

    .47 ?6.53?4.44?3.98?8.76?4.20Intercept

    (1.69) (2.06) (3.27) (2.05) (2.02) (2.04)

    16.61 26.79 21.27 27.56 26.36 --- Std err of reg 2.38 .28 .36 .39 .33 --- R

    343 456 509 451 448 --- N

    Source: 1972-74-76 NES panel.

Table 6: The Impact of Watergate Attitudes, With and Without Demographic

    Controls

Errors-in-variables regression parameter estimates (with standard errors in parentheses).

    Dependent variables are 1976 issue positions (?50 = extreme conservative; +50 = extreme

    liberal).

    Liberal-Government School Rights of Aid to Weighted

    conservative jobs busing accused minorities average

    High information (upper one-third)

Perceived issue proximity

    .153 .060.174.180.080.134Without

    (.061) (.079) (.083) (.064) (.073) (.070) controls

    (Table 3)

    .202 .107.175.151.124.154With

    (.079) (.097) (.105) (.079) (.088) (.087) demographic

    controls

     Issue positions

    .085 .228.125.161.077.122Without

    (.063) (.104) (.064) (.110) (.101) (.078) controls

    (Table 3)

    .136 .223.132.219.125.154With

    (.083) (.124) (.083) (.140) (.117) (.100) demographic

    controls

    Low information (lower two-thirds)

     Perceived issue proximity

    .032 .049 ?.131 .041 .004 .008 Without

    (.054) (.057) (.066) (.050) (.051) (.055) controls

    (Table 4)

    ?.003 ?.013?.101.023?.044?.025With

    (.067) (.067) (.071) (.065) (.067) (.067) demographic

    controls

     Issue positions

    ?.085 .040.078.076.155.044Without

    (.061) (.076) (.055) (.079) (.077) (.067) controls

    (Table 4)

    ?.117 .067.109.172.187.076With

    (.077) (.090) (.062) (.094) (.088) (.078) demographic

    controls

    Source: 1972-74-76 NES panel.

    Table 7: Party Identification and Perceptions of Party Proximity for

    Spending/Services, 2004

    Average relative perceived proximities (with standard errors in parentheses). Positive numbers

    imply that the Republican Party is perceived as closer; negative numbers imply that the

    Democratic Party is perceived as closer.

     Partisan Self-Placement Democrats Independents Republicans Difference

     1

    ?3.15 ?1.33 +.84 +3.99 (many more services; increase

    spending a lot; N = 132) (.28) (.35) (.49) (.57)

    ?2.66 ?1.66+.97+3.632

    (N = 133) (.21) (.23) (.37) (.43)

    ?1.44 ?.78 +.18 +1.62 3

    (N = 225) (.15) (.14) (.17) (.23)

    ?.24 +.05+.83+1.074

    (N = 254) (.13) (.10) (.12) (.18)

    +.22 +.91+2.42+2.205

    (N = 119) (.33) (.23) (.20) (.38)

    ?.53 +2.51+3.07+3.606

    (N = 68) (.92) (.47) (.30) (.97)

    ?2.71 +1.78+3.20+5.917

    (many fewer services; reduce (1.23) (.48) (.42) (1.30)

    spending a lot; N = 47)

    Source: 2004 NES survey.

Table 8: Party Identification and Perceptions of Abortion Proximity, 2004

    Average relative perceived proximities (with standard errors in parentheses). Positive numbers

    imply that the Republican Party is perceived as closer; negative numbers imply that the

    Democratic Party is perceived as closer.

     Partisan Self-Placement Democrats Independents Republicans Difference

    ?1.60 ?1.51 ?1.11 +.50 1 (always a personal choice;

    N = 340) (.11) (.10) (.15) (.19)

     ?.81?.43?.13+.692 (after need clearly established;

    N = 153) (.15) (.12) (.13) (.20)

     +.02+.48+1.23+1.223 (only rape, incest, life

    endangered; N = 264) (.12) (.09) (.09) (.15)

    +.42 +.89+1.52+1.104 (should never be permitted;

    N = 115) (.23) (.25) (.17) (.29)

    Source: 2004 NES survey.

Table 9: Party Identification and Perceptions of Party Proximity on Liberal-

    Conservative Scale, 1972-2004

Average relative perceived proximities (with standard errors in parentheses). Positive numbers

    imply that the Republican Party is perceived as closer; negative numbers imply that the

    Democratic Party is perceived as closer.

     Partisan Self-Placement Democrats Independents Republicans Difference

    ?3.20 ?2.16+.43+3.631

    (extreme liberal; N = 425) (.10) (.14) (.56) (.43)

    ?2.85 ?1.88?.41+2.442

    (N = 1933) (.05) (.08) (.23) (.17)

    ?1.83 ?1.35?.49+1.343

    (N = 2454) (.04) (.05) (.10) (.10)

    ?.37 ?.14+.14+.514

    (N = 6547) (.02) (.02) (.03) (.03)

    +.15 +1.13 +1.66 +1.51 5

    (N = 3766) (.05) (.04) (.03) (.06)

    ?.16 +1.90+3.14+3.306

    (N = 3450) (.11) (.07) (.03) (.09)

    ?.86 +1.25+3.59+4.467

    (.25)(.23)(.10)(.25)(extreme conservative; N = 581)

    Source: 1972-2004 NES surveys.

    Figure 1

    Perceptions of Budget Deficit

    by Party and Information Level, 1996

    50

    25

    0

    -25

    (-50 increased a lot; +50 decreased a lot)Perceived improvement in budget deficit Democrats

    Republicans

    -50

    0102030405060708090100

    Political information (percentile)

    Figure 2

    Perceptions of National Economy

    by Party and Information Level, 199650

    25

    0

    -25Perceived change in previous year

    Democrats (-50 gotten much worse; +50 gotten much better)

    Republicans

    -50

    0102030405060708090100

    Political information (percentile)

    Figure 3

    Implied Weight of Reality in Perceptions

    of Budget Deficit, by Information Level

    1.0

    0.9

    0.8

    0.7

    0.6

    0.5

    0.4

    0.3

    0.2

    0.1

    0.0

    0102030405060708090100

    Political information (percentile)

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com