Version 01 Codebook
-------------------
CODEBOOK INTRODUCTION FILE
1988 PRE-POST STUDY
(1988.TV)












                    AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES
                          1988 PRE-POST STUDY






                         PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

                            WARREN E. MILLER
                    AND THE NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES



                      CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES
                         UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN























                        NES ARCHIVE NUMBER 9196





          BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ASSISTANCE
                           AND DATA DISCLAIMER


          ALL MANUSCRIPTS UTILIZING DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH
      THE CONSORTIUM SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FACT AS WELL AS
      IDENTIFY THE ORIGINAL COLLECTOR OF THE DATA.  IN ORDER TO
      GET SUCH SOURCE ACKNOWLEDGMENT LISTED IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
      BIBLIOGRAPHIC UTILITIES, IT IS NECESSARY TO PRESENT THEM IN
      THE FORM OF A FOOTNOTE OR A REFERENCE.  THE BIBLIOGRAPHIC
      CITATION FOR THIS DATA COLLECTION IS:


              MILLER, WARREN E., AND THE NATIONAL ELECTION
              STUDIES. AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY,
              1988: PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY COMPUTER
              FILE. ANN ARBOR, MI: CENTER FOR POLITICAL
              STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 1989
              ORIGINAL PRODUCER. ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN:
              INTER-UNIVERSITY CONSORTIUM FOR POLITICAL
              AND SOCIAL RESEARCH, 1989 PRODUCER AND
              DISTRIBUTOR.


          THE ICPSR COUNCIL URGES ALL USERS OF THE ICPSR DATA
      FACILITIES TO FOLLOW SOME ADAPTATION OF THIS STATEMENT WITH
      THE PARENTHESES INDICATING ITEMS TO BE FILLED IN
      APPROPRIATELY OR DELETED BY THE INDIVIDUAL USER.


              THE DATA (AND TABULATIONS) UTILIZED IN THIS
              (PUBLICATION) WERE MADE AVAILABLE (IN PART)
              BY THE INTER-UNIVERSITY CONSORTIUM FOR
              POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RESEARCH.  THE DATA FOR
              AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1988: PRE-
              AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY WERE ORIGINALLY
              COLLECTED BY WARREN E. MILLER AND THE
              NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES.  NEITHER THE
              COLLECTOR OF THE ORIGINAL DATA NOR THE
              CONSORTIUM BEARS ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
              ANALYSES OR INTERPRETATIONS PRESENTED HERE.


          IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FUNDING AGENCIES WITH ESSENTIAL
      INFORMATION ABOUT THE USE OF ARCHIVAL RESOURCES AND TO
      FACILITATE THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ABOUT ICPSR
      PARTICIPANTS' RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, EACH USER OF THE ICPSR
      DATA FACILITIES IS EXPECTED TO SEND TWO COPIES OF EACH
      COMPLETED MANUSCRIPT OR THESIS ABSTRACT TO THE CONSORTIUM.
      PLEASE INDICATE IN THE COVER LETTER WHICH DATA WERE USED.







                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

      Note: >> sections in the codebook introduction and
            codebook appendix can be navigated in the
            machine-readable files by searching ">>".


INTRODUCTIORY MATERIALS   (file int1988.cbk)
-----------------------
>> 1988 STUDY DESCRIPTION INTRODUCTION
>> 1988 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION
>> 1988 SAMPLING INFORMATION
>> 1988 VOTE VALIDATION STUDY
>> 1988 ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SURVEY
>> 1988 STAFF AND TECHNICAL PAPERS
>> 1987 NES PILOT STUDY REPORTS
>> DESCRIPTION OF REVALIDATION OF 1988 VOTE (1991)
>> 1988 CODEBOOK INFORMATION
>> 1988 ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION
>> 1988 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST



CODEBOOK
--------
    1988 variables


APPENDICES   (file app1988.cbk)
----------
>> 1980 CENSUS DEFINITIONS
>> 1988 PARTY/CANDIDATE MASTER CODE
>> 1988 CANDIDATE NUMBER MASTER CODE
>> 1988 IMPORTANT PROBLEMS CODE
>> 1988 OCCUPATION RECODES
>> 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE
>> 1980 CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE
>> 1988 ICPSR NATIONALITY AND ETHNIC CODE
>> 1988 ICPSR STATE AND COUNTRY CODE
>> CITIES WITH POPULATION OF 25,000 OR MORE, 1988 Study
>> 1998 STATE PRIMARY BALLOT CARDS
>> 1988 CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODE
>> 1988 PARTY DIFFERENCES CODE
>> 1988 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE MASTER CODE






>> 1988  STUDY DESCRIPTION INTRODUCTION

      THE NES/CPS AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY 1988 WAS
      CONDUCTED BY THE CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES OF THE
      INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, UNDER THE GENERAL DIRECTION
      OF WARREN E. MILLER.  SANTA TRAUGOTT IS THE DIRECTOR OF
      STUDIES. HEATHER HEWITT MANAGED THE STUDY FOR THE SURVEY
      RESEARCH CENTER'S FIELD OFFICE. GIOVANNA MORCHIO OF THE NES
      PROJECT STAFF PREPARED THE DATA FOR RELEASE. THIS IS THE
      TWENTIETH IN A SERIES OF STUDIES OF AMERICAN NATIONAL
      ELECTIONS PRODUCED BY THE POLITICAL BEHAVIOR PROGRAM OF THE
      SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER AND THE CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES,
      AND IT IS THE SIXTH SUCH STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE
      AUSPICES OF NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION GRANTS (SOC77-08885
      AND SES-8341310) PROVIDING LONG-TERM SUPPORT FOR THE
      NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES.  SINCE 1978 THE NES ELECTION
      STUDIES HAVE BEEN DESIGNED BY A NATIONAL BOARD OF OVERSEERS,
      THE MEMBERS OF WHICH MEET SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR TO PLAN
      CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE MAJOR STUDY COMPONENTS.

      BOARD MEMBERS DURING THE PLANNING OF THE 1988 NATIONAL
      ELECTION STUDY INCLUDED:  MORRIS P. FIORINA, HARVARD
      UNIVERSITY, CHAIR; RICHARD A. BRODY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY;
      STANLEY FELDMAN, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY; EDIE N. GOLDENBERG,
      UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN;  GARY C. JACOBSON, UNIVERSITY OF
      CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO; STANLEY KELLEY, JR., PRINCETON
      UNIVERSITY; DONALD R. KINDER, THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN;
      THOMAS MANN, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; DOUGLAS RIVERS, THE
      UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES; RAY WOLFINGER, THE
      UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY; WARREN E. MILLER,
      ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, EX OFFICIO; AND STEVEN J.
      ROSENSTONE, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, EX OFFICIO.
      AS PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS, A SPECIAL PLANNING
      COMMITTEE WAS APPOINTED, A PILOT STUDY CONDUCTED, AND
      STIMULUS LETTERS SENT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SCHOLARLY
      COMMUNITY SOLICITING INPUT ON STUDY PLANS.  THE 1988 STUDY
      PLANNING COMMITTEE INCLUDED SEVERAL BOARD MEMBERS (KINDER,
      CO-CHAIR; KELLEY; MILLER, EX OFFICIO; AND ROSENSTONE,
      EX-OFFICIO AND CO-CHAIR) AND TWO OTHER SCHOLARS (KATHLEEN
      KNIGHT, UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON, AND JOHN ZALLER, UNIVERSITY
      OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES.

      THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BEGAN MEETING IN FEBRUARY OF 1987.  A
      TWO-WAVE PILOT STUDY WAS CARRIED OUT IN MAY AND JUNE OF 1987
      FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING NEW INSTRUMENTATION FOR THE
      1988 ELECTION STUDY.  THE PILOT STUDY RESPONDENTS WERE A
      SUBSAMPLE OF 1986 ELECTION STUDY RESPONDENTS, AND THE 1986
      DATA FOR THESE RESPONDENTS IS PART OF THE RELEASED DATASET.
      NEW ITEMS WERE TESTED IN THE AREA OF MORALITY, FOREIGN
      POLICY ATTITUDES, SYSTEM SUPPORT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY.

      A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE STUDY WAS DEVOTED TO
      EXPERIMENTS DESIGNED TO FURTHER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SURVEY
      RESPONSE. DATA FROM THE PILOT STUDY ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH
      THE INTER-UNIVERSITY CONSORTIUM FOR POLITICAL AND SOCIAL
      RESEARCH (ICPSR 8713). RESULTS FROM THE PILOT STUDY WERE
      USED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE IN FORMULATING
      RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ABOUT STUDY CONTENT FOR THE
      1988 ELECTION STUDY.
      THE 1988 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY HAD TWO OTHER MAJOR
      COMPONENTS.  THIS DOCUMENT DESCRIBES THE TRADITIONAL PRE-
      AND POST-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SURVEY PANEL.  THE OTHER
      MAJOR COMPONENTS WERE: A STUDY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL
      NOMINATING PROCESS, FOCUSED ON THE MARCH 8 (SUPER-TUESDAY)
      PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION; AND A STUDY OF SENATE
      ELECTIONS, CONDUCTED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE POST-ELECTION
      SURVEY.  THE SENATE ELECTIONS STUDY WAS CONDUCTED BY
      TELEPHONE.  THE SUPER-TUESDAY STUDY IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
      THROUGH THE ICPSR (9093); THE SENATE STUDY IS AVAILABLE AS
      ICPSR 9219.






>> 1988 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION



      SURVEY CONTENT.

      THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS BALANCED A NUMBER OF CONSIDERATIONS
      IN SELECTING CONTENT FOR THE PRE- AND POST-PRESIDENTIAL
      ELECTION SURVEY PANEL.  THERE WAS, AS ALWAYS, THE NECESSITY
      OF MAINTAINING CONTINUITY WITH PAST SURVEYS, SO THAT
      MEASURES THAT HAVE REACHED THE TIME-SERIES OR "CORE" STATUS
      COULD BE MAINTAINED.  ALL "CORE" ITEMS WERE EVALUATED BY THE
      BOARD, AND INPUT WAS SOLICITED FROM THE USER COMMUNITY ABOUT
      WHETHER EACH SHOULD BE RETAINED.

      THE CORE ITEMS FOR THE PRE-ELECTION STUDY INCLUDE:  CAMPAIGN
      ATTENTION; LIKES AND DISLIKES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL
      CANDIDATES; MEDIA ATTENTIVENESS; REAGAN APPROVAL; FEELING
      THERMOMETER RATINGS OF CANDIDATES AND PARTIES; RETROSPECTIVE
      ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS (NATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL); TRAITS AND
      AFFECTS FOR BUSH, DUKAKIS AND JACKSON; LIBERAL-CONSERVATIVE
      SCALE (WITH PROXIMITIES); PARTY IDENTIFICATION, 7-POINT
      ISSUE SCALES WITH PLACEMENTS; FEDERAL BUDGET PREFERENCES;
      VIEWS ON ABORTION; VOTE INTENTION; AND THE STANDARD AND
      EXTENSIVE BATTERY OF DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS.

      POST-ELECTION STUDY CORE ITEMS ARE:  CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE
      LIKES AND DISLIKES; THERMOMETER RATINGS OF CANDIDATES AND
      GROUPS; RECALL; CONTACT WITH CONGRESSPERSON OR CANDIDATE;
      VOTE; MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM; CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES; SYSTEM
      SUPPORT AND EFFICACY ITEMS; QUESTIONS ABOUT RACIAL
      ATTITUDES; BATTERIES OF LIKERT TYPE (AGREE-DISAGREE)
      MEASURES OF VALUES AND PREDISPOSITIONS; AND A GROUP
      CLOSENESS QUESTION.

      A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ARE NEW OR RELATIVELY NEW TO THE PRE-
      AND POST-ELECTION SURVEYS.  SOME CAME FROM THE PILOTING WORK
      DESCRIBED ABOVE, OTHERS WERE REINSTATED AT THE URGING OF THE
      NES SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY, AND OTHERS WERE DESIGNED TO REFLECT
      TOPICAL CONCERNS OF THE CAMPAIGN.  ITEMS IN THIS NEW CONTENT
      CATEGORY IN THE PRE-ELECTION STUDY ARE: EVALUATIONS OF THE
      PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES; THE RESPONDENT'S PRIMARY
      VOTE; HOW SERIOUSLY THE RESPONDENT EVALUATES THE BUDGET
      DEFICIT AND WHETHER H/SHE WOULD PAY MORE IN TAXES; A
      SEVEN-POINT SCALE ON HEALTH INSURANCE; FOREIGN POLICY
      ATTITUDE ITEMS; A REINSTATED ITEM ON EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN;
      A QUESTION ON SERIOUSNESS OF THE DRUG PROBLEM IN THE UNITED
      STATES; AND A SECTION DEALING WITH EVALUATIONS OF THE REAGAN
      PRESIDENCY.

      THE POST-ELECTION "NEW CONTENT" INCLUDES:  EVALUATIONS OF
      THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY (SEE SURVEY ADMINISTRATION);
      RECALL OF THE 1984 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE; PARENTAL PARTY
      IDENTIFICATION; EVALUATION OF BUSH AND DUKAKIS ON THE ISSUES
      OF ENVIRONMENT AND CRIME; A QUESTION ABOUT THE DEATH
      PENALTY; AND NEW SYSTEM SUPPORT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY
      ITEMS.

      SURVEY ADMINISTRATION.

      TWO BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS WERE SET BY THE BOARD THAT
      RELATE TO SURVEY ADMINISTRATION:  1) IN THE PRE-ELECTION
      WAVE, THE SURVEY WAS TO BE ADMINISTERED IN TWO-WEEK
      "QUARTERS."  2) BOTH SURVEYS WERE TO BE ADMINISTERED IN TWO
      FORMS, SO THAT A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF CONTENT COULD BE
      INCLUDED. BOTH OF THESE PARAMETERS ARE EXPLAINED BELOW.

      INTERVIEW TARGET PERIODS.

      IF ONE THINKS THAT THERE IS SOME AMOUNT OF VOTE
      DECISION-MAKING THAT IS RELATIVELY LATE, THEN ONE WOULD LIKE
      TO HAVE A MEASURE THAT IS NOT CONTAMINATED BY DIFFICULTY OF
      OBTAINING INTERVIEW, FOR VOTE-DECISION BY TIME-OF-
      INTERVIEW.  THAT IS, IF THE ENTIRE SAMPLE IS RELEASED
      IMMEDIATELY AND THE MOST RELUCTANT AND HARD-TO-REACH
      RESPONDENTS ARE SYSTEMATICALLY INTERVIEWED LATER IN THE
      INTERVIEW PERIOD THAN ARE MORE AMENABLE RESPONDENTS, AND IF
      THE HARDER-TO-REACH RESPONDENTS ALSO DECIDE LATER (OR
      DIFFERENTLY) THAN OTHER RESPONDENTS, THEN THE VOTE-DECISION
      BY TIME-OF-INTERVIEW RELATIONSHIP IS CONFOUNDED.

      THIS LOGIC LED THE BOARD TO DECIDE THAT THE SAMPLE SHOULD BE
      ADMINISTERED IN FOUR TWO-WEEK QUARTERS.  THE FIELD PERIOD
      BEGAN ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6.  THE FIRST QUARTER ENDED
      MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19TH.  THE SECOND QUARTER WAS SEPTEMBER
      20TH-OCTOBER 3RD; THE 3RD QUARTER WAS OCTOBER 4TH-OCTOBER
      17TH; AND THE LAST QUARTER WAS OCTOBER 17TH-OCTOBER 31.
      NOVEMBER 1-NOVEMBER 7 WAS LEFT FOR "CATCH-UP" INTERVIEWS. IT
      IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT INTERVIEWS WITH SELECTED
      RESPONDENTS THAT COULD NOT BE TAKEN IN THE SAMPLE QUARTER
      ASSIGNED TO THEM WERE NONETHELESS TAKEN, USUALLY LATER IN
      THE STUDY PERIOD.  80% OF ALL INTERVIEWS WERE TAKEN WITHIN
      THE TARGET PERIOD.  VARIABLE V880039 RECORDS INFORMATION ABOUT
      TARGET PERIOD ASSIGNMENT AND SUCCESS. ONE QUARTER OF EACH
      SEGMENT (SEE SAMPLING INFORMATION) AS ASSIGNED TO EACH
      TWO-WEEK TARGET PERIOD.

      FORMS.

      TWO FORMS WERE USED IN BOTH PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEYS,
      CONTAINING SOME QUESTION-WORDING EXPERIMENTS AND SOME
      QUESTION-ORDERING EXPERIMENTS.  (SEE TABLE 1A AT THE END OF
      THIS SECTION FOR A MAPPING OF QUESTIONS BY FORM.)  FOR THE
      PRE-ELECTION STUDY, HALF THE SAMPLE WAS ASSIGNED TO FORM A,
      AND THE OTHER HALF TO FORM B.  FORM ASSIGNMENT WAS THE SAME
      IN THE POST AS IN THE PRE, ALTHOUGH A FEW POST-ELECTION
      RESPONDENTS WERE INADVERTENTLY ADMINISTERED THE WRONG FORM.
      THEY ARE TRACEABLE IN VARIABLE V880040.

      IT IS CRITICAL TO NOTE THE INTERACTION OF THE REAGAN
      RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION ITEMS WITH THE FORM ASSIGNMENT.
      THIS SECTION WAS PARTICULARLY LENGTHY.  IN ORDER NOT TO MAKE
      EITHER THE PRE- OR THE POST-ELECTION INSTRUMENT UNACCEPTABLY
      LONG, AND ALSO TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF POST-ELECTION MEDIA
      ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENCY, THE REAGAN EVALUATION ITEMS WERE
      SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO WAVES AND THE TWO FORMS AS FOLLOWS:
      FORM A RESPONDENTS WERE ADMINISTERED PART 1 OF THE REAGAN
      RETROSPECTIVE ITEMS IN THE PRE-ELECTION STUDY.  THEY
      RECEIVED PART 2 OF THE REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE IN THE
      POST-ELECTION STUDY.  FORM B RESPONDENTS WERE ADMINISTERED
      PART 2 OF THE REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE IN THE PRE-ELECTION WAVE,
      AND PART 1 IN THE POST-ELECTION SURVEY.

      NOTE THAT PART 1 ITEMS WERE ADMINISTERED TO HALF THE
      RESPONDENTS IN THE PRE-ELECTION SURVEY AND TO THE OTHER HALF
      OF THE RESPONDENTS IN THE POST-ELECTION SURVEY, AND
      SIMILARLY FOR PART 2 ITEMS.  THE STUDY STAFF HAS BUILT, AND
      ICPSR HAS RETAINED, MEASURES COMBINING PRE- AND
      POST-ELECTION ADMINISTRATIONS OF EACH REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE
      VARIABLE. THESE COMBINED VARIABLES APPEAR IN THE
      POST-ELECTION SECTION OF THE DATASET, VARIABLES V880898-V880923
      AND 881002-881043.  (PLEASE SEE TABLE 1A BELOW FOR
      CLARIFICATION.) THE CODEBOOK DOCUMENTS THESE SITUATIONS WITH
      AN A OR B AND PRE- OR POST- NOTATION IN THE VARIABLE NAME. 
      THE ORIGINAL PRE-ELECTION VARIABLES HAVE BEEN DELETED FOR THE
      ICPSR RELEASE DATASET.

      THE OTHER MAJOR USAGE OF THE TWO FORMS WAS TO CONDUCT AN
      EXPERIMENT IN SURVEY RESPONSE.  STANDARD LIKERT BATTERIES ON
      VALUES (I.E., EGALITARIANISM, RACISM) WERE ADMINISTERED AS
      USUAL, TOGETHER AS ONE BATTERY, IN FORM A OF THE
      POST-ELECTION SURVEY. IN FORM B, THESE ITEMS WERE SPLIT UP
      AND SCRAMBLED.  THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT IS TO
      DETERMINE WHETHER SCALE OR INDEX RELIABILITIES RESULT FROM
      INHERENT ITEM CONSISTENCIES, OR BECAUSE OF RESPONSE SET

      DEVELOPED BY RESPONDENTS, AS THEY GO THROUGH A SIMILAR SET
      OF ITEMS.  THE VERSION OF THESE ITEMS THAT APPEARS IN THE
      ICPSR RELEASE OF THE DATA ARE COMBINED FROM BOTH FORMS;
      USERS SHOULD BE AWARE, HOWEVER, OF THE DIFFERENCES IN
      ADMINISTRATION BETWEEN FORMS FOR THESE ITEMS.  BOTH THE DATA
      MAP AND CODEBOOK FLAG THESE VARIABLES WITH (A & B) NOTATION.

      SEVERAL OTHER POINTS ABOUT THE SURVEY ADMINISTRATION NEED
      FURTHER ELABORATION:

      1) AS USUAL, THERE WERE A FEW ERRONEOUSLY SELECTED
      RESPONDENTS.  IN THE TWO OF THE THREE INSTANCES LISTED
      BELOW, THE REASON FOR THE INCORRECT SELECTION WAS IMPROPER
      NUMBERING OF THE KISH SELECTION TABLE (SEE SAMPLING
      INFORMATION) BY THE INTERVIEWER.  THE WRONGLY SELECTED
      RESPONDENTS WERE NOT SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF WHO WAS MOST
      AVAILABLE. NEVERTHELESS, FOR THOSE ANALYSTS WHO WISH TO
      DELETE THESE CASES, THEIR PRE-ELECTION CASE ID#S ARE:
      00253, 00316, 00362.

      2) IN THE POST-ELECTION SURVEY, RESPONDENTS ARE ASKED
      LENGTHY SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR PARTICULAR
      CONGRESSPERSONS AND SENATORS. INTERVIEWERS MUST PRE-EDIT
      QUESTIONNAIRES TO FILL IN THE NAMES APPROPRIATE FOR THE
      STATE AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT IS
      LIVING (OR WAS LIVING DURING THE PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW).
      INTERVIEWERS ARE SENT "CANDIDATE LISTS"  FOR EACH
      CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN THE SAMPLE SEGMENTS IN WHICH THEY
      ARE INTERVIEWING.  EACH CANDIDATE AND SENATOR ON THAT LIST
      IS ASSIGNED A PARTICULAR NUMBER THAT REFLECTS HIS OR HER
      INCUMBENCY STATUS AND PARTY.  (SEE CANDIDATE NUMBER MASTER
      CODES)  PARTICULAR QUESTIONS IN THE
      SURVEY REQUIRE THE INSERTION BY THE INTERVIEWER DURING
      PRE-EDITING OF THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH SPECIFIC
      NUMBERS.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, Q. B1, THE FEELING THERMOMETER.
      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 THE APPENDICES, NOTE 3 OF THIS DOCUMENTATION.

      OCCUPATION CODING.

      IN THE 1988 ELECTION STUDY, THE OCCUPATION CODING IS BASED
      ON THE 1980 CENSUS BUREAU THREE DIGIT OCCUPATION CODE.
      STARTING WITH THE 1986 ELECTION STUDY, WE HAVE RELEASED
      THESE VARIABLES IN SOMEWHAT LESS DETAIL THAN IN YEARS PAST.
      THE DATASET INCLUDES A TWO-DIGIT CODE WITH 71 CATEGORIES
      CORRESPONDING TO CENSUS BUREAU OCCUPATIONAL GROUPINGS.
      THOSE WHO HAVE NEED OF THE FULL OCCUPATION CODE FOR THEIR
      RESEARCH SHOULD CONTACT THE NES PROJECT STAFF FOR
      INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ACCESS TO THESE
      DATA MAY BE PROVIDED.


      OTHER CONFIDENTIALITY RECODING.

      FOR SOME YEARS, THE NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES HAVE NOT
      RELEASED INFORMATION FOR CENSUS TRACTS OR MINOR CIVIL
      DIVISIONS.  THIS YEAR, INFORMATION ABOUT NEWSPAPERS READ BY
      FEWER THAN 10 PERSONS, AND/OR PUBLISHED IN RELATIVELY SMALL
      GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED. PERMISSION TO USE THE
      MORE DETAILED GEOGRAPHIC OR NEWSPAPER INFORMATION FOR
      SCHOLARLY RESEARCH MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE BOARD OF
      OVERSEERS.  MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS IS AVAILABLE FROM
      NES PROJECT STAFF.

      OPEN-ENDED MATERIALS.

      TRADITIONALLY, THE ELECTION STUDIES HAVE CONTAINED SEVERAL
      MINUTES OF OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES (FOR EXAMPLE, THE
      PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 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 THAT 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 1A

                         QUESTION LAYOUT BY FORM


                            PRE-ELECTION WAVE

                                 FORM A               FORM B

      QUESTION CONTENT         Q#      VAR#         Q#       VAR#
      -----------------------------------------------------------

      GOV. HELP BLACKS/OTHR          880332-               880340-
      MINORITIES 7-PT SCALE   L6A-H  880339         L7A-H   880347

      REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE           881002-
      PART 1                P1-P13X  881043           NOT ASKED

      REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE      NOT ASKED                  880898-
      PART 2                                      Q1-Q5X   880923


                           POST-ELECTION WAVE

                                 FORM A               FORM B

      QUESTION CONTENT         Q#      VAR#         Q#       VAR#
      -----------------------------------------------------------

      REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE      NOT ASKED                  881002-
      PART 1                                     N1-N13B   881043
                                              (INCLUDES DATA FROM
                                                    PRE: P1-P13X)

      REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE  K1-K5X   880898-          NOT ASKED
      PART 2                         880923
                        (INCLUDES DATA FROM
                               PRE: Q1-Q5X)

      EQUALITARIANISM        L1A-F   880924-     SCRAMBLED 880924-
                                     880929       IN L & M 880929

      POLITICAL EFFICACY     M1A-H   880936-     SCRAMBLED 880936-
                                     880944       IN L & M 880944
      TRADITIONAL MORALITY   M4A-D   880951-     SCRAMBLED 880951-
                                     880954       IN L & M 880954

      RACISM                 M11A-E  880961-     SCRAMBLED 880961-
                                     880964       IN L & M 880964

      NATIONALISM            M15A-C  880972-     SCRAMBLED 880972-
                                     880974       IN L & M 880974




                                TABLE 1B

             STUDY TOTALS FOR PRE AND POST ELECTION SURVEYS


                      PRE-ELECTION RESPONSE RATE

                          QUARTER 1     .752

                          QUARTER 2     .730

                          QUARTER 3     .701

                          QUARTER 4     .641
                       - - - - - - - - - - - -

                          OVERALL       .705

                   LENGTH OF INTERVIEW    68.0 MIN

                     NO. OF RESPONDENTS     2040


       POST-ELECTION: NUMBER AND CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF INTERVIEWS
                        BY TIME AFTER NOV. 8TH

                  NOV. 8- NOV. 21       970      55%

                  NOV. 22-DEC.05        486      82

                  DEC.6-DEC.19          244      96

                  DEC. 20-JAN.2          40      98

                  JAN.3-JAN.16           34      99

                  JAN.16-JAN.30           1     100

              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                    TOTAL NO. OF RESPONDENTS  1775

                         RESPONSE RATE: .870

                 LENGTH OF INTERVIEW    60.2 MINUTES




>> 1988 SAMPLING INFORMATION

      STUDY POPULATION

      THE STUDY POPULATION FOR THE 1988 NES IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE
      ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS OF VOTING AGE ON OR BEFORE THE
      1988 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 8 NOVEMBER 1988.

      MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN

      THE 1988 NES IS BASED ON A MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY
      SAMPLE SELECTED FROM THE SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER'S (SRC)
      NATIONAL SAMPLE DESIGN.  IDENTIFICATION OF THE 1988 NES
      SAMPLE RESPONDENTS WAS CONDUCTED USING A FOUR STAGE SAMPLING
      PROCESS--A PRIMARY STAGE SAMPLING OF U.S. STANDARD
      METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (SMSA'S) (SEE CENSUS
      DEFINITIONS IN APPENDIX) 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 ENTITLED
      1980 SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.

      PRIMARY STAGE SELECTION

      THE SELECTION OF PRIMARY STAGE SAMPLING UNITS (PSU'S) (2),
      WHICH DEPENDING ON THE SAMPLE STRATUM ARE EITHER SMSA'S,
      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 SMSA/NON-SMSA 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,

      ------------------

      (1) PREPARED BY THE SAMPLING SECTION OF THE SURVEY RESEARCH
      CENTER.
      (2) IN SRC PUBLICATIONS AND SURVEY MATERIALS, THE TERM
      "PRIMARY AREA" IS USED INTERCHANGEABLY WITH THE MORE COMMON
      "PRIMARY STAGE UNIT" TERMINOLOGY.


      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 TIMES THE
      SIZE OF THE 1988 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 PSU'S.  EACH OF THE PARTITIONS
      REPRESENTS A STRATIFIED SUBSELECTION FROM THE FULL 84 PSU
      DESIGN.

      THE SAMPLE FOR THE 1988 NES IS SELECTED FROM THE "ONE-HALF"
      PARTITION OF THE 1980 SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE.  THE "ONE-HALF
      SAMPLE" INCLUDES 11 OF THE 16 SELF-REPRESENTING SMSA PSU'S
      AND A STRATIFIED SUBSAMPLING OF 34 (OF THE 68)
      NONSELF-REPRESENTING PSU'S OF THE SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE.
      TABLE 2 IDENTIFIES THE PSU'S FOR THE 1988 NATIONAL ELECTION
      STUDY BY SMSA STATUS AND REGION.

      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 CENSUS SUMMARY TAPE FILE SERIES (STF1-B).  THE
      DESIGNATED SECOND-STAGE SAMPLING UNITS (SSU'S), TERMED "AREA
      SEGMENTS", ARE COMPRISED OF CENSUS BLOCKS IN THE
      METROPOLITAN PRIMARY AREAS AND ENUMERATION DISTRICTS (ED'S)
      IN THE RURAL NON-SMSA'S AND RURAL AREAS OF SMSA 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 SSU'S 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) PSU'S THE NUMBER OF SAMPLE AREA
      SEGMENTS VARIED IN PROPORTION TO THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY
      STAGE UNIT, FROM A HIGH OF B=18 AREA SEGMENTS IN THE SR NEW
      YORK SMSA TO A LOW OF B=7 AREA SEGMENTS IN THE SMALLER SR
      PSU'S SUCH AS SAN FRANCISCO. A TOTAL OF B=6 AREA SEGMENTS



                                 TABLE 2

           PSU'S IN THE 1988 NES PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY
                       BY: SMSA STATUS AND REGION

      REGION                        SMSA STATUS

                                        NON
             SELF-REPRESENTING   SELF-REPRESENTING   NON-SMSA'S
                   SMSA'S              SMSA'S
      ------------------------------------------------------------
      NORTH-    NEW YORK, NY-NJ   BOSTON, MA*       SCHUYLER, NY
       EAST     PHILADELPHIA,     PITTSBURGH, PA*
                       PA-NJ      BUFFALO, NY
                                  NEW HAVEN, CT
                                  ATLANTIC CITY, NJ
                                  MANCHESTER, NH

      NORTH     CHICAGO, IL       ST. LOUIS, MO*     SANILAC, MI
      CENTRAL   DETROIT, MI       MILWAUKEE, WI      PHILLIPS, KS
                                  DAYTON, OH         MOWER, MN
                                  DES MOINES, IA
                                  GRAND RAPIDS, MI
                                  FORT WAYNE, IN
                                  STEUBENVILLE, OH

      SOUTH                       HOUSTON, TX*       BULLOCH, GA
                                  BALTIMORE, MD*     HALE, TX
                                  BIRMINGHAM, AL     MONROE, AR
                                  COLUMBUS, GA-AL    BEDFORD, TN
                                  MIAMI, FL          ROBESON, NC
                                  LAKELAND, FL
                                  MCALLEN, TX
                                  WHEELING, WV
                                  KNOXVILLE, TN
                                  RICHMOND, VA

      WEST    LOS ANGELES, CA     SEATTLE, WA        ELDORADO-
              SAN FRANCISCO, CA   DENVER, WY           ALBINE, CA
                                  ANAHEIM, CA        CARBON, WY
                                  FRESNO, CA
                                  EUGENE, OR
      ------------------

      NOTE:  THE PSU'S MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) ARE
      SELF-REPRESENTING FOR SAMPLE DESIGNS THAT USE THE TWO-THIRDS
      OR LARGER PORTION OF THE SAMPLE.  FOR THE HALF-SAMPLE
      DESIGN, 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.

      WAS SELECTED FROM EACH OF THE A=39 NONSELF-REPRESENTING
      (NSR) PSU'S (EXCEPT HOUSTON WHICH HAD 7 SEGMENTS SELECTED).
      A TOTAL OF 303 SEGMENTS WERE SELECTED, 68 IN THE SIX
      SELF-REPRESENTING PSU'S AND 235 IN THE NONSELF-REPRESENTING
      PSU'S.

      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 1988 NES
      WAS SYSTEMATICALLY SELECTED FROM THE HOUSING UNIT LISTINGS
      FOR THE SAMPLED AREA SEGMENTS.

      IN ORDER TO DISTRIBUTE THE INTERVIEWS EVENLY ACROSS THE
      PRE-ELECTION PERIOD, THE SAMPLE WAS DIVIDED INTO QUARTERS:
      (1) SEPTEMBER 6-19;  (2) SEPTEMBER 20-OCTOBER 3;  (3)
      OCTOBER 4-17; (4) OCTOBER 18-31.  (NOVEMBER 1-NOVEMBER 7 WAS
      "CLEAN-UP" WEEK). ONCE AN INTERVIEW WAS RELEASED FOR A GIVEN
      QUARTER, IT COULD BE TAKEN DURING ANY SUBSEQUENT QUARTER,
      ALTHOUGH 80% WERE ACTUALLY ADMINISTERED DURING THE ASSIGNED
      QUARTER.  THE SAMPLE FROM EACH QUARTER INCLUDED ALL SAMPLE
      SEGMENTS.  EACH QUARTER SAMPLE COULD STAND ALONE AS A
      PROBABILITY SAMPLE.

      THE OVERALL PROBABILITY OF SELECTION FOR 1988 NES HOUSEHOLDS
      WAS F=.00003800 OR .38 IN 10,000.  THE EQUAL PROBABILITY
      SAMPLE OF HOUSEHOLDS WAS ACHIEVED 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.

      FOURTH STAGE RESPONDENT SELECTION

      WITHIN EACH SAMPLED HOUSING UNIT, THE SRC INTERVIEWER
      PREPARED A COMPLETE LISTING OF ALL ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD
      MEMBERS. USING AN OBJECTIVE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED BY KISH (3) A
      SINGLE RESPONDENT WAS THEN SELECTED AT RANDOM TO BE
      INTERVIEWED. REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES, NO SUBSTITUTIONS
      WERE PERMITTED FOR THE DESIGNATED RESPONDENT.

      ------------------

      (3) L. KISH, "A PROCEDURE FOR OBJECTIVE RESPONDENT SELECTION
      WITHIN THE HOUSEHOLD" JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL
      ASSOCIATION, VOL. 44 (1949): PP. 380-387.

      SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

      THE TARGETED COMPLETED INTERVIEW SAMPLE SIZE FOR THE 1988
      NES PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY WAS N=2000 CASES.  IN THE
      ORIGINAL SAMPLE SIZE COMPUTATION, THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS
      WERE MADE:  RESPONSE RATE = .72, COMBINED
      OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY RATE = .87, AND NEW CONSTRUCTION
      UPDATE INFLATION FACTOR = 1.03.  THESE ASSUMPTIONS WERE
      DERIVED FROM SURVEY EXPERIENCE IN THE 1984 NES PRE-POST
      ELECTION SURVEY.  TABLE 3 PROVIDES A FULL DESCRIPTION OF THE
      ORIGINAL  SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS.



                                 TABLE 3

          ORIGINAL SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
                    AND ACTUAL SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES

                                      ORIGINAL          ACTUAL
                                      --------          ------

       COMPLETED INTERVIEWS             2000             2040
          RESPONSE RATE                     .72              .705
       ELIGIBLE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS       2778             2893
          OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY RATE*       .87              .826
       FINAL SAMPLE HU LISTINGS         3193             3503
          SAMPLE GROWTH FROM UPDATE**      1.03             1.046
       SAMPLE LISTINGS FROM FRAME       3100             3349

      ------------------

      * ELIGIBILITY (.97) X OCCUPANCY (.90)

      **SINCE THE UPDATING PROCESS PRODUCES ABOUT A 3% INCREASE IN
      SAMPLE LINES OVER THE COUNT SELECTED FROM THE NATIONAL
      SAMPLE SYSTEM, THE UPDATE INFLATION FACTOR WAS SET AT 1.03


      SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES

      IN COMPARING THE FIRST COLUMN OF TABLE 3 WITH THE SECOND
      COLUMN, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE SAMPLE GROWTH FROM THE
      UPDATE PROCEDURE WAS SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN EXPECTED.
      HOWEVER, THE ORIGINAL SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
      OVERESTIMATED THE ACTUAL RESPONSE AND OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY
      RATES.  THE ASSUMPTIONS FOR RESPONSE RATE AND
      OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY RATE WERE BASED ON THE RATES OBTAINED
      IN THE 1984 PRE-ELECTION SURVEY.  THE ACTUAL
      OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY RATE FOR THE 1988 PRE-ELECTION SURVEY
      (.826) WAS CLOSER TO THE RATE OBTAINED IN THE 1986
      POST-ELECTION SURVEY (.835) THAN THE 1984 RATE OF .87. THE
      RESPONSE RATE FOR 1988


      (.705) WAS BETWEEN THE 1984 RATE OF .72 AND THE 1986 RATE OF
      .677.  THE RELEASE OF THREE RESERVE REPLICATES OF 83 SAMPLE
      LISTINGS EACH ALLOWED THE NUMBER OF SAMPLE LISTINGS TO BE
      ADJUSTED DURING THE INTERVIEW PERIOD TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL
      RESPONSE AND OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY RATES.  THEREFORE, THE
      NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS OBTAINED, 2040, WAS CLOSE TO THE TARGET
      OF 2000 INTERVIEWS.

      WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1988 NES DATA

      THE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN FOR THE 1988 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 THAT HAVE SHOWN THESE WEIGHTS TO HAVE LITTLE
      SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE VALUES OF NES ESTIMATES OF
      DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS.

      THE CURRENT POLICY OF THE NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES IS NOT
      TO INCLUDE IN PUBLIC USE DATA SETS SPECIAL ANALYSIS WEIGHTS
      DESIGNED TO COMPENSATE FOR  NONRESPONSE OR TO POST-STRATIFY
      THE SAMPLE TO KNOWN POPULATION DISTRIBUTION CONTROLS.
      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.

      SAMPLING ERRORS OF 1988 NES ESTIMATES
      SAMPLING ERROR CALCULATION PROGRAMS

      THE PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN FOR THE 1988 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 THAT 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 THAT 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 THAT REFLECT THE COMPLEX
      STRUCTURE OF THE SAMPLE AND ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
      COMPUTATION ALGORITHMS OF THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS.  THE
      SAMPLING ERROR CODES FOR THE 1988 NES ARE INCLUDED AS
      VARIABLE 24 IN THE ICPSR 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.

      TABLE 4 PROVIDES A DESCRIPTION OF HOW INDIVIDUAL SAMPLING
      ERROR CODE VALUES ARE TO BE PAIRED FOR SAMPLING ERROR
      COMPUTATIONS.  THIRTY (30) PAIRS OR STRATA OF SAMPLING ERROR
      COMPUTATION UNITS (SECU'S) 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 SECU'S 61 AND 63.



                                 TABLE 4

                   1988 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY
         PAIRED SELECTION MODEL FOR SAMPLING ERROR COMPUTATIONS

                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               63                  65
                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


      GENERALIZED SAMPLING ERROR RESULTS FOR THE 1988 NES

      TO ASSIST 1988 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.  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 5.

      INCORPORATING THE PATTERN OF "DESIGN EFFECTS" OBSERVED IN
      THE EXTENSIVE SET OF EXAMPLE COMPUTATIONS, TABLE 5 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 THAT BEST APPROXIMATES
      THE VALUE OF THE ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE THAT IS OF
      INTEREST.(4)  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 5 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.


      ------------------

      (4) 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.



                                 TABLE 5

         1988 NES PRE-ELECTION SURVEY GENERALIZED VARIANCE TABLE
               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

        2040     1.716     1.685     1.561      1.298      1.020


>> 1988 VOTE VALIDATION STUDY


      THE VOTE VALIDATION STUDY IS THE RESULT OF A SYSTEMATIC
      CHECK OF THE REGISTRATION AND/OR VOTING RECORDS OF 1988
      ELECTION STUDY RESPONDENTS WHO REPORTED THAT THEY WERE
      REGISTERED AND WHERE.  SIMILAR RECORD CHECKS WERE DONE FOR
      1964, 1972, 1974 1976, 1980, 1984, AND 1986 RESPONDENTS.

      THE MOTIVATION FOR THESE STUDIES CONTINUES TO BE FOUND IN
      THE DIFFERENCE IN ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL TURNOUT AS DERIVED
      FROM: 1) AGGREGATING OFFICIAL VOTE TOTALS FROM ELECTION
      OFFICES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES AND DIVIDING BY THE
      ESTIMATED NUMBER OF AGE-ELIGIBLE U. S. CITIZENS; AND 2)
      DIVIDING THE NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED THAT
      THEY VOTED BY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS IN THE SURVEY.
      THE LATTER ESTIMATE IS ALMOST ALWAYS 10-12% LOWER.

      WHILE SOME PORTION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
      ESTIMATES IS DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
      DENOMINATORS-- I.E., THE POPULATION OF THOSE AGREEING TO BE
      INTERVIEWED IN A SURVEY IS DEMONSTRABLY DIFFERENT FROM THE
      POPULATION OF ALL CITIZENS OVER 18-- ANOTHER LARGE PORTION
      OF THIS DIFFERENCE IS THOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE
      MISREPORTING OF VOTING BEHAVIOR TO INTERVIEWERS BY
      RESPONDENTS.  SOME RESPONDENTS REPORT THAT THEY VOTED WHEN
      IN FACT THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO.  BECAUSE THE INTERVIEW IS A
      SOCIAL SITUATION AND VOTING IS A NORM, IN ORDER NOT TO
      REPORT THE VIOLATION OF A NORM, SOME RESPONDENTS PREFER TO
      TELL INTERVIEWERS THAT THEY VOTED.  (SOME MAY BELIEVE THAT
      THIS IS A MORE REPRESENTATIVE STATEMENT OF THEIR USUAL CIVIC
      INVOLVEMENT THAN THE HAPPENSTANCE OF THEIR NOT VOTING IN THE
      MOST RECENT ELECTION.)

      THE MOTIVATION FOR THE RECORDS CHECK IS NOT SO MUCH TO STUDY
      THE INTERESTING SOCIAL PHENOMENON OF MISREPORTING AS IT IS
      TO CLARIFY TO THE ANALYST WHO ACTUALLY DID VOTE AND WHO
      PROBABLY DID NOT.  OVER-REPORT IS AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM FOR
      ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATION AND IT MAY ALSO BE A PROBLEM IN
      THE ANALYSIS OF VOTE CHOICE.

      THE ONLY WAY TO TELL IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY VOTED IS TO LOOK AT
      THE VOTING AND REGISTRATION RECORDS IN THE LOCAL ELECTION
      OFFICE CORRESPONDING TO WHERE THE RESPONDENT LIVES (OR TELLS
      THE INTERVIEWER THAT HE IS REGISTERED).  FOR THE NES
      ELECTION STUDIES, THIS PROCEDURE WAS USED BY SENDING SRC
      INTERVIEWERS (IN 1984, 1986 AND 1988, THESE WERE OFTEN FIELD
      SUPERVISORS) TO PERFORM THE RECORD SEARCH AND INSPECTION.
      EACH TIME VALIDATION HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED IN THIS MANNER,
      STAFF HAVE FOUND THAT A SMALL PROPORTION (3-5%) OF
      RESPONDENTS:  A) REPORTED THAT THEY VOTED; AND B) HAVE A
      REGISTRATION RECORD IN THE ELECTION OFFICE; BUT C) ARE NOT
      INDICATED IN THE VOTING RECORD AS HAVING VOTED IN THE

      ELECTION.  LEAVING ASIDE THE QUESTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
      ERRORS, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THESE R'S ACTUALLY DID NOT
      VOTE.

      THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF RESPONDENTS WHO REPORTED THAT THEY
      VOTED BUT FOR WHOM INTERVIEWERS ARE UNABLE TO FIND A
      REGISTRATION RECORD AT ALL.  THE NES STUDY STAFF IS
      CONVINCED OF THE DILIGENCE AND TENACIOUS PERSISTENCE OF THE
      SRC REPRESENTATIVES SEARCHING FOR THESE RECORDS, AND
      BELIEVES THAT FOR THE VERY GREAT MAJORITY OF THIS SET OF
      RESPONDENTS, THERE IS INDEED NO ONE REGISTERED AT THAT
      OFFICE, WITH THAT NAME.  THE NES STAFF IS NOT NECESSARILY
      CONVINCED OF HAVING THE RIGHT ADDRESS FOR THIS PERSON, OR
      THE RIGHT NAME, OR THE RIGHT NAME SPELLED CLOSE ENOUGH TO
      THE VERSION ON THE REGISTRATION RECORDS, TO ENABLE SUCCESS
      IN FINDING THE RESPONDENT'S RECORD.

      THE NES STAFF DOES NOT VALIDATE THE REPORTED REGISTRATION
      AND/OR VOTE OF EVERY RESPONDENT IN THE STUDY.  IT IS
      ACCEPTED WITHOUT FURTHER CHECK THE REPORT OF THOSE WHO SAID
      THEY ARE NOT REGISTERED.  AND THE RECORDS CANNOT BE CHECKED
      OF THOSE WHO DIDN'T GIVE THEIR NAME.  IN RARE INSTANCES, AN
      ELECTION OFFICE WILL REFUSE ACCESS TO RECORDS AND
      RESPONDENTS SERVED BY THESE OFFICES ALSO CANNOT BE
      VALIDATED.

      THE VOTE VALIDATION PORTION OF THE DATAFILE CONTAINS A
      NUMBER OF SUMMARY VARIABLES REPORTING THE RESULTS OF THE
      RECORD CHECK.  THE SUMMARY VARIABLE V881147 ASSIGNS A VALUE OF
      VOTING OR NOT VOTING TO EVERY RESPONDENT IN THE STUDY.
      WHERE STAFF WAS UNABLE OR DID NOT CHECK THE RECORDS,
      RESPONDENT'S SELF-REPORT WAS ASSIGNED.  IT IS THIS VARIABLE
      THAT REPRESENTS, IN THE STUDY STAFF'S VIEW, THE MAXIMUM
      CLARIFICATION POSSIBLE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT
      ACTUALLY VOTED IN THE 1988 ELECTION

      OF 2040 CASES IN THE 1988 ELECTION STUDY, 1413 WERE
      EARMARKED FOR VALIDATION.  THE 1413 FIGURE INCLUDES 252 OF
      THE 265 CASES WITH NO POST INTERVIEW IN 1988.

      OF THE 2040 TOTAL RESPONDENTS, 375 WERE NOT VALIDATED FOR
      THE FOLLOWING REASONS:


                   19   -     NO NAME*
                    3   -     OFFICE REFUSED**
                   11   -     R DK IF REGISTERED;
                              NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER
                  342   -     NOT REGISTERED***


      *   11 OF THESE HAD NO POST INTERVIEW
      **  2 OF THESE HAD NO POST INTERVIEW
      *** OF 344 IN THIS CATEGORY, 2 ALSO HAD NO NAME AND ARE
           INCLUDED IN THE 19 WITH NO NAMES


      IN ADDITION, 35 CASES EARMARKED FOR VALIDATION COULD NOT BE
      VERIFIED BECAUSE THE R WAS NOT REGISTERED AT HIS/HER SAMPLE
      LOCATION AND THE IWR CHECKED RECORDS AT THE ELECTION OFFICE
      SERVING THE SAMPLE LOCATION INSTEAD OF THE ELECTION OFFICE
      OF R'S ASSERTED REGISTRATION.  THESE CASES ARE DESIGNATED
      CODE 9 IN V1118.






>> 1988 ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SURVEY


      THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATION DATASET IS PART OF THE 1988 VOTE
      VALIDATION STUDY.  IN ORDER TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE RESULTS
      OF THE INDIVIDUAL VOTER RECORD SEARCH CONDUCTED FOR
      RESPONDENTS TO THE 1988 PRE-POST ELECTION SURVEYS, AN
      INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED WITH THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATION
      OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF THE ELECTION OFFICE PERTAINING TO THE
      SAMPLE SEGMENT IN WHICH RESPONDENTS LIVED.

      INTERVIEWS WERE OBTAINED WITH OFFICIALS IN 120 OFFICES.
      THIS INTERVIEW USED A STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WAS
      DESIGNED TO GATHER INFORMATION IN THREE AREAS: 1) HOW
      REGISTRATION AND VOTING RECORDS ARE KEPT AND UPDATED; 2)
      CONVENIENCE OF REGISTRATION IN THE JURISDICTION AND 3)
      INTERVIEWER EVALUATION OF OFFICE ORGANIZATION, EFFICIENCY
      AND COOPERATION.

      A NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS IN THE 1988 ELECTION STUDY WERE NOT
      VALIDATED FOR ANY OF SEVERAL REASONS; FOR EXAMPLE, THEY
      REPORTED THAT THEY WERE NOT REGISTERED AND DID NOT VOTE;
      AND/OR THEY DID NOT PROVIDE THEIR NAME; AND/OR THEY WERE
      REGISTERED AT SOME PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE ANES SAMPLE AREAS.
      IN THESE CASES, OFFICE DATA WAS ATTACHED TO RESPONDENTS
      BASED ON THEIR SAMPLE ADDRESS.






>>  1988 NES STAFF AND TECHNICAL PAPERS


      BREHM, JOHN. (1985A) "REPORT ON CODING OF ECONOMIC
         CONDITIONS SERIES IN THE 1984 PRE-POST ELECTION STUDY: A
         REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION
         STUDIES."  WORKING PAPER NO. 8. ANN ARBOR: CPS, JUNE
         1985.

      BREHM, JOHN. (1985B) "ANALYSIS OF RESULT CODE DISPOSITION
         FOR CONTINUOUS MONITORING BY TIME IN FIELD: REPORT TO THE
         BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES." WORKING
         PAPER NO. 7.  ANN ARBOR: CPS, AUGUST 1985.

      BREHM, JOHN. (1985C) "QUESTION ORDERING EFFECTS ON REPORTED
         VOTE CHOICE." UNPUBLISHED MEMO, JULY 1985.

      BREHM, JOHN. (1987A) "HOW REPRESENTATIVE IS THE 1986
         POST-ELECTION SURVEY?" MEMO TO BOARD OF OVERSEERS,
         NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES, MAY 1987.

      BREHM, JOHN. (1987B) "WHO'S MISSING? AN ANALYSIS OF
         NONRESPONSE IN THE 1986 ELECTION STUDY: A REPORT TO THE
         BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES."  WORKING
         PAPER NO. 10. ANN ARBOR: CPS, DECEMBER 1987.

      BREHM, JOHN AND SANTA TRAUGOTT. (1986) "SIMILARITY AND
         REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE 1985 PILOT HALF-SAMPLES." MEMO
         TO THE NES 1985 PILOT STUDY COMMITTEE MARCH, 1986.

      LAKE, CELINDA. (1983A) "SIMILARITY AND REPRESENTATIVENESS OF
         1983 PILOT SAMPLES." MEMO TO NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES
         1984 PLANNING COMMITTEE, SEPTEMBER 1983.

      LAKE, CELINDA. (1983) "COMPARISON OF 3-POINT, 5-POINT, AND
         7-POINT SCALES FROM THE CATI EXPERIMENT 1982 ELECTION
         STUDY." MEMO TO NES BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NOVEMBER 1983.

      LAKE, CELINDA. (1984) "CODING OF INDEPENDENT/INDEPENDENTS
         AND APOLITICALS IN THE PARTY IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY CODE
         AND APOLITICALS IN THE ROLLING CROSS-SECTION."  MEMO TO
         BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES. FEBRUARY
         1984.

      MORCHIO, GIOVANNA. (1987) "TRENDS IN NES RESPONSE RATES."
         MEMO TO NES BOARD OF OVERSEERS.

      MORCHIO, GIOVANNA AND MARIA SANCHEZ. (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." WORKING
         PAPER NO. 1, ANN ARBOR: CPS, FEBRUARY 1984.

      MORCHIO, GIOVANNA AND MARIA SANCHEZ. (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." WORKING PAPER NO. 2.  ANN ARBOR: CPS, MARCH
         1984.

      MORCHIO, GIOVANNA, MARIA SANCHEZ AND SANTA TRAUGOTT. (1985)
         "MODE DIFFERENCES: DK RESPONSES IN THE 1984 POST-ELECTION
         SURVEY: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL
         ELECTION  STUDIES." WORKING PAPER NO. 9.  ANN ARBOR: CPS,
         NOVEMBER 1985.

      MORCHIO, GIOVANNA AND SANTA TRAUGOTT. (1986)
         "CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT IN AN RDD SAMPLE:
         RESULTS OF 1982 CATI EXPERIMENT." MEMO TO THE 1986 PILOT
         PLANNING COMMITTEE.  FEBRUARY 1986.

      NES STAFF. (1984)  "QUESTIONS AND VERSIONS IN NES
         CONTINUOUS MONITORING, 1984: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF
         OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES."  WORKING PAPER NO.
         3.  ANN ARBOR: CPS, AUGUST 1984.

      NES STAFF. (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."  WORKING PAPER NO. 4.  ANN ARBOR: CPS,
         AUGUST 1984.

      NES STAFF. (1985) "PROGRESS OF THE ROLLING CROSS SECTION."
         MEMO TO NES BOARD OF OVERSEERS, FEBRUARY 1985.

      NES STAFF. (UNDATED) "YEARS OF SCHOOLING." UNPUBLISHED STAFF
         MEMO.

      NES STAFF. (UNDATED)  "NEWSPAPER CODE." UNPUBLISHED STAFF
         MEMO.

      TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1984) "TWO VERSIONS OF THE ABORTION
         QUESTION." UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO TO THE NES BOARD OF
         OVERSEERS, JUNE 1984.

      TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1985) "SAMPLE WEIGHTING IN NES CONTINUOUS
         MONITORING, 1984.: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS,
         NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES," WORKING PAPER NO. 5.  ANN
         ARBOR: CPS, APRIL 1985.

      TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1985) "SAMPLE WEIGHTING IN NES PRE-POST
         ELECTION SURVEY, 1984: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF
         OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES," WORKING PAPER
         NO. 6.  ANN ARBOR: CPS, APRIL 1985.

      TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1985) "ASSESSMENT OF MEDIA MEASURES IN
         RXS." UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO, JULY 1985.

      TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1985) "ASSESSMENT OF MEDIA MEASURES IN
         PRE-POST" UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO, JULY 1985.

      TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (UNDATED) "THE POLITICAL INTEREST VARIABLE
         ON THE 1984 ELECTION STUDY." UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO TO
         NES PLANNING COMMITTEE.

      TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1985) "SOME ANALYSIS OF HARD-TO-REACH
         ROLLING THUNDER RESPONDENTS." UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO TO
         NES BOARD OF OVERSEERS, FEBRUARY 1985.





>> 1987 PILOT STUDY REPORTS


      CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON AND STANLEY FELDMAN.  MEASURING
         PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM.

      CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON AND DAVID LOWERY.  PILOT STUDY
         QUESTIONS ON WELFARE/POVERTY.

      CRAIG, STEPHEN AND RICHARD NIEMI.  POLITICAL EFFICACY AND
         TRUST. SEPTEMBER 25, 1987.

      FELDMAN, STANLEY.  EVALUATION OF NEW EQUALITY ITEMS.
         SEPTEMBER 29, 1987.

      KNIGHT, KATHLEEN.  MEASUREMENT OF LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE
         IDENTIFICATION. SEPTEMBER 23, 1987.

      NIEMI, RICHARD, CHARLES HADLEY, AND HAROLD STANLEY.
         NATIONAL AND STATE PARTY IDENTIFICATION.  SEPTEMBER 25,
         1987.

      NIEMI, RICHARD AND HERB WEISBERG.  1987 PILOT STUDY "FORCE
         CHOICE" PARTY IDENTIFICATION QUESTION EXPERIMENT.
         SEPTEMBER 25, 1987.

      PEFFLEY, MARK AND JON HURWITZ.  REPORT ON FOREIGN POLICY
         ITEMS, 1987 PILOT STUDY.

      SHINGLES, RICHARD.  REPORT ON MEASURES OF EFFICACY AND
         TRUST. SEPTEMBER 28, 1987.  MEMORANDUM.

         REPORT.  NEW MEASURES OF SUBJECTIVE POLITICAL EFFICACY
         AND POLITICAL TRUST.  SEPTEMBER 28, 1987.  ADDENDUM
         TABLE 4. SUPPLEMENTS 1, 2, 3.

      STOKER, LAURA L.  MORALITY AND POLITICS:  CONDUCT AND
         CONTROL.  A REPORT ON NEW ITEMS IN THE 1987 NATIONAL
         ELECTION PILOT STUDY. SEPTEMBER 1987.

      TATE, KATHERINE.  WHITES' PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP ECONOMIC
         DIFFERENCES. SEPTEMBER 28, 1987.

      ZALLER, JOHN AND STANLEY FELDMAN.  FRAME OF REFERENCE AND
         THE SURVEY RESPONSE.  FELDMAN AND ZALLER MEMORANDUM,
         SEPTEMBER 27, 1987.



>> DESCRIPTION OF REVALIDATION OF 1988 VOTE (1991) 


     This dataset consists of the results of a revalidation of voting and
registration as reported by respondents to the 1988 Election Study. The
re-looking up of these records was carried out in conjunction with the 1990
Vote Validation Study. It was done in order to measure the error in the vote
validation process itself. The vote validation study carried out in
July-August of 1991 was the eighth time that NES has done a voter validation
study. Previous validations were done for the 1964, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1984,
1986, and 1988 Post Election Studies.

     The voter validation study is carried out by sending name and address
information for respondents who say they are registered to vote, to a Survey
Research Center field interviewer, who is instructed to check with the local
office at which respondents report being registered for the purpose of
locating the registration records of these respondents and to ascertain
whether or not the records show that the respondents voted in the most recent
general election.

     It is important to note that the search is conducted by people who are
trained in survey methods but not in records management, and who may
themselves vary in terms of their understanding of the records, their
pertinacity, the thoroughness by which every avenue in the records is
explored, and so on. It was recommended to the NES Board of Overseers that
revalidation of the 1988 Election Study would be an appropriate and modest
first step in determining the extent to which vote validation findings are
related to the process itself.(1) Accordingly, the Board decided that 1988
respondents should be validated at the same time as the 1990 respondents, to
the extent that offices scheduled to be visited for the 1990 respondents also
encompassed the 1988 respondents.

     The procedures and forms used for the 1988 respondents were identical to
those used for the 1990 respondents. The 1990 forms and procedures are similar
to, but distinct from, those used in 1988. In most cases, the SRC field
personnel who did the lookups in 1990 were not the same people who did the
1988 lookups. If there are interviewer effects, these would show up as
different interviewers conduct record checks on the same people in the same
offices.

A. The "Office" Variables

     In order to conduct elections honestly, lists of eligible voters are
generated by each election office, with each voter assigned to one and only
one precinct. Therefore, for the purpose of registration and voting, an
individual must be associated with one and only one address, belonging in one
and only one electoral jurisdiction.

     Since NES respondents come from a national area probability sample, a
large number of different election offices are included in the validation
study, usually over 100.


-------------------------
     (1) Presser, S., Traugott, M. and Traugott, S. "Extending Methodological
Development of Survey Response Errors for Voting." Memo to the Board of
Overseers, Feb. 1991.


The jurisdiction of these election offices is usually the county but in New
England and a few other states, registration and voting records are maintained
at a local level, including townships.

     Because of the diversity in record keeping and access across these many
offices, the vote validation dataset has two conceptual parts. The most
obvious part is the results of the record check for individual respondents.
The other part, the office variables, may perhaps be labeled "contextual"
data, for these variables describe the search procedure and the records
themselves.

     We include the variables describing the records and the search procedure
because the relationship between the respondent's report and what is found or
not found in official records is not necessarily a straightforward one. One
view of the matching process is that the official records are always correct,
and that in the event of discrepancy, the respondent must have "misreported"
his or her behavior. Another view is that the records themselves are but
another form of measurement of a particular behavior, and as such, are subject
to measurement error. So, for example, the computerized transcription of poll
records, which are the records which have been checked in most offices, could
be inaccurate. The situation is made more complex by the fact that there
appears to be an irreducible minimum proportion of respondents for whom a
record of registration cannot be located at all, and logically, it is
difficult if not impossible to say that this negative finding demonstrates
beyond doubt that respondents are not registered. It is always possible that
with a "better" search, a more accurate spelling of the person's name, a
correct understanding of where the person is actually registered, the record
would have been located.

     We think the user needs information not only about what we have found,
but what the records themselves are like, and what the search was like, so
that the user can make some evaluation of whether record-respondent
discrepancies cluster in-particular patterns of record keeping or search.(2)

     Information about the records, and the search process, was coded from
several sources. First, the SRC interviewer who did the records check
administered a brief (10-15 minute) -questionnaire to an official in the
records office asking specifically about how the records were organized. The
purpose of this interaction was for the interviewer to gain information to
enable her to conduct the records search efficiently.

     Second, as the interviewer went on to fill out the forms recording the
results of individual record checks, that is, to actually use the records that
had been described, her

     (2) This view has been evolving within NES for some period of time. The
following technical reports, papers and other memoranda trace this
development: Traugott, S., (1989) Validating Self-Reported Vote, 1964-1988;
Presser, S; Traugott, S. and Traugott M. (1990) "Vote 'Over' Reporting in
Surveys: The Records or the Respondents"; and Traugott, S. and Morchio, G.
"1990 Vote Validation" (1991). Any of these papers or reports are available by
contacting NES project staff.

understanding of the records often changed, sometimes by the discovery of
additional sources not originally described to her. These discoveries were
annotated on the forms themselves, rather than on the office interview. The
NES staff reviewed all of the individual record check forms from a particular
office in conjunction with the election official's questionnaire.

     A third source of information, used somewhat tentatively because of the
possibility of change in the intervening time, was the previous interviews
conducted in the same office. (NES has been in the same sample frame since
1984, and many of these offices have been visited three previous times.) These
interviews were used to elucidate points that were not clear. Finally, for
between 20-30% of the offices, various points remained unclear and the offices
and/or the SRC interviewers were called by the NES staff for further
information.

     All of these sources were used in the coding of the office variables
(V882103-V882149). The chief focus of the office variables is in what sources
were actually used by the interviewer, and how they were used. We do not
describe in detail all of the records that the office keeps. These office
variables differ in focus from previous codings of office variables, where the
interest was in describing the office records themselves, rather than those
used. The reason for this is that as we read through the materials, we were
struck by how frequently sources which were theoretically available were not
used because they were not readily accessible. For example, the office might
have a computerized system for keeping track of registrants. But, it is in
another building, and we don't have access to it on anything but printouts.
Or, the computer is "down." Often, poll books are stored off-site, and offices
are reluctant to retrieve them for our inspection, claiming. that "everything
on them is on the computer." Hence, while we attach the office interview
schedule itself as part of the documentation, the user should be aware that
the office variables are not a direct transcription from this questionnaire,
but rather address the somewhat different question of what sources were
actually used.

B. The Lookup Process

     If election offices share a common central mission, that of conducting
elections without fraud, they also display a bewildering variety of terms for
similar procedures, to say nothing of widely different procedures to achieve
the same ends. There are places with numerous versions of sophisticated
computer tracking, and places with one set of poll ledgers. The supervisors of
these offices can be highly professional, or, in one or two cases, obvious
political appointees. Some offices boast the latest in computer technology,
including digitized signatures and bar codes over which a wand can be passed
to register that a person has voted; while others make do with signatures and
initials on the original registration card. We have validated in jurisdictions
having voters numbering in the millions and thousands of precincts and in
places where there is one precinct with several hundred registrants.

     Each year we face the difficulty of trying to -.rain survey interviewers
in how to diagnose the intricacies of records management in the offices they
are likely to encounter, so that they can use ALL the sources potentially
available to them efficiently in the actual lookup process. In 1984, we hit
upon the strategy of conducting an interview with an election official, prior
to actually looking up the records, so that the look-up person would have a
detailed idea of what records were available to her. Each time we do this, we
struggle to improve this office questionnaire so that it will better lead the
naive interviewer through the maze of different office procedures.

     Although NES staff is somewhat removed from the complexities of each
individual office, we try to write some general instructions to guide the
interviewers in the lookup process. For this study, the task of the
interviewer was described to them as first finding a record that they were
reasonably sure was the respondent's; then, ascertaining what the record
showed about whether the respondent voted or did not vote in the general
elections of 1990 and 1988. It was explained that all offices maintain a list
of who is registered in their jurisdiction. From this master list, all offices
send to each polling place a list in some form of who is eligible to vote at
that voting place. When people vote, some mark is made to indicate that they
done so (to reduce the possibility of fraud, following the time honored rule
of one person, one vote.) Information about whether a person did or did not
vote may or may not be posted back to the master office list of who is
registered. There are many variations on this scheme: for example, some
offices divide the master list (which is on cards) into precinct binders and
send these out to the polls where they are marked.) Thus, the master list is
also the poll book. However, the general outline is simple.

     Based on this general outline, and assuming that most offices post vote
information back to the registration record, interviewers were to look first
at the master registration record for evidence that R had voted. If the record
did not show that R voted, they were to look at the original poll books, to
the extent they were available, for some further indication of vote.
(Historiographers will recognize the distinction between primary and secondary
sources, one that has been slow to dawn on us as survey researchers.) One
example will illustrate the importance of primary sources. An interviewer
happened to be a registered voter in a county where she was looking up
records. She noted that many more respondents appeared to have voted in 1990
than in 1988. She thought this was strange. Accordingly, she looked up her own
record for 1988, and found that the computer did not show her as voting,
although she had. It didn't show her son or husband as voting either, although
they voted with her. The original poll records, however, showed she and her
family as voting. It turned out that there had been a sizeable transcription
error in 1988, in this office.

     As the NES staff evaluated what we received back from interviewers, both
record check forms and election official interviews, it was clear that in many
offices, original sources were not used, either because they were not made
available to the interviewer (sometimes they are destroyed after information
has been posted to the computer) or because the interviewer did not press for
access to these sources. Also, some interviewers went about their task in a
way exactly contrary to instructions, i.e., they looked first at the poll
records, and then searched the registration records for people they couldn't
locate. The trouble with this strategy is that some nontrivial proportion of
people are not registered to vote in the precinct in which they were
interviewed; rather they vote somewhere else in the same jurisdiction.
Starting with the poll books means considerably more going back and forth
between registration records and poll records; in this process, it is much
more difficult for the interviewer with a sizeable number of cases in an
office to keep track of exactly which sources she has or has not used in a
particular case. (3)

C. Contents of the Dataset

     The present dataset is very similar in structure to the 1990 vote
validation dataset; containing variables about the results of the individual
respondent lookup as well as about the lookup procedure itself. A few
variables from the 1988 vote validation are included; these are the results of
the lookup, i.e., whether or not a registration record was found and whether
or not the respondent appears to have voted in 1988.

     There are 2040 records in the 1988 Revalidation dataset, one record for
each respondent in the 1988 Pre-Election Study. We have "padded" the vote
validation dataset by adding records with missing data codes for 1988
respondents who were not validated.

     The dataset which we are releasing now has variables from several
sources. These are:

1.   Variables about the individual respondents from the 1988 Election Study,
including self-reported vote and registration. All variables which were
generated for the coversheet, with the exception of name, address and
geographic information, are included.

2.   Variables from the individual record check form filled out by the
interviewer in the election office. These are variables 882003-882046.

4.   Variables describing the sources used and the search procedure in the
election records office in which the respondent's record was looked up.
(Variables 882103-882149). There will be no further release of the office
level information.

     While this is a "stand-alone" dataset, most users will find it most
useful merged back into the 1988 Election Study. Merging should be relatively
simple because there is one record for the vote validation dataset for each
record in the 1988 Pre-Election Study.

     (3) In fairness to the interviewers, we should say that our interviewers
are entirely dependent on the good will of the people assisting them in any
given office. Often, these people had an understandable interest in minimizing
the time devoted to helping our interviewer and the interviewers were
reluctant to press them with timeconsuming requests for original sources. In
retrospect, the NES staff needed to do much more to prepare the offices and
the interviewers about resources would be needed to complete the lookup task.



        MEMBERSHIP OF THE NES BOARD OF OVERSEERS
                    February, 1991

Stanley Feldman               State University of New York, Stony Brook
Morris J. Fiorina             Harvard University
Mary Jackman                  University of California, Davis
Gary Jacobson                 University of California, San Diego
David Leege                   Notre Dame University
Thomas Mann                   The Brookings Institution
Douglas Rivers                Stanford University
John Zaller                   University of California, Los Angeles

              PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS

Warren E. Miller              Arizona State University
Donald R. Kinder              University of Michigan
Steven J. Rosenstone          University of Michigan

                   STUDY STAFF
     Associated with the 1991 Panel/Pilot Study

Santa Traugott                NES Project Manager
Thomas M. Ivacko              Study Manager, NES
Fran Eliot                    Research Assistant, NES
Zoanne Blackburn              Study Manager, SRC/Telephone Facility


>> 1988 CODEBOOK INFORMATION

The following example from the 1948 NES study provides the standard 
format for codebook variable documentation. 

Note that NES studies which are not part of the Time-Series usually
omit marginals and the descriptive content in lines 2-5 (except for
variable name).


Line

1  ==============================                                              
2  VAR 480026    NAME-R NOT VT-WAS R REG TO VT                                 
3                COLUMNS 61   - 61                                             
4                NUMERIC                                                       
5                MD=0 OR GE 8                                                  
6                                                                              
7                  Q. 17.  (IF R DID NOT VOTE)  WERE YOU REGISTERED (ELIGIBLE)
8                  TO VOTE.                                                   
9                  ...........................................................
10                                                                            
11            82       1.  YES                                                
12           149       2.  NO                                                 
13                                                                             
14             0       8.  DK                                                 
15             9       9.  NA                                                 
16           422       0.  INAP., R VOTED                                     
                                                                  


Line 2 - VARIABLE NAME.  Note that in the codebook the variable name
         (usually a 'number') does not include the "V" prefix which is 
         used in the release SAS and SPSS data definition files
         (.sas and .sps files) for all variables including those
         which do not have 'number' names.  For example the variable
         "VERSION" in the codebook is "VVERSION" in the data definition
         files.

Line 2 - "NAME".  This is the variable label used in the SAS and SPSS
         data definition files (.sas and .sps files).  Some codebooks 
         exclude this.

Line 3 - COLUMNS.  Columns in the ASCII data file (.dat file).

Line 4 - CHARACTER OR NUMERIC.  If numeric and the variable is a decimal
         rather than integer variable, the numer of decimal places is 
         also indicated (e.g. "NUMERIC  DEC 4")

Line 5 - Values which are assigned to missing by default in the Study's
         SAS and and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files).

Line 7 - Actual question text for survey variables or a description of 
         non-survey variables (for example, congressional district).
         Survey items usually include the question number (for example
         "B1a.") from the Study questionnaire; beginning in 1996 
         non-survey items also have unique item numbers (for example
         "CSheet.1").

Line 9 - A dashed or dotted line usually separates question text from
         any other documentation which follows.

Line 10- When present, annotation provided by Study staff is presented
         below the question text/description and preceding code values.

Lines 11-16
         Code values are listed with descriptive labels.  Valid codes
         (those not having 'missing' status in line 5) are presented
         first, followed by the values described in line 5.  For
         continuous variables, one line may appear providing the range
         of possible values.  A blank line usually separates the 'valid'
         and 'missing' values.

Lines 11-16
         Marginals are usually provided for discrete variables.  The
         counts may be unweighted or weighted; check the Study codebook
         introductory text to determine weight usage.


>> 1988 ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION


      THE DATA COLLECTION WAS PROCESSED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD
      ICPSR PROCESSING PROCEDURES FOR CLASS I DATA COLLECTIONS.
      THE DATA WERE CHECKED FOR ILLEGAL OR INCONSISTENT CODE
      VALUES WHICH, WHEN FOUND, WERE EITHER CORRECTED OR RECODED
      TO MISSING DATA VALUES.  EXTENSIVE CONSISTENCY CHECKS WERE
      PERFORMED. STATEMENTS BRACKETED IN "<" AND ">" SIGNS IN THE
      BODY OF THE CODEBOOK WERE ADDED BY THE PROCESSORS FOR
      EXPLANATORY PURPOSES.








>> 1988 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST

                             ICPSR VARIABLES

     VERSION NES VERISON NUMBER
      DSETNO NES DATASET NUMBER
      880001 ICPSR ARCHIVE NUMBER- 9196
      880004 RESPONDENT PRE-ELECTION CASE ID


                          SAMPLING INFORMATION

      880005 PRIMARY AREA CODE
      880006 PRIMARY AREA NAME
      880007 SEGMENT NUMBER
      880008 CENSUS REGION
      880009 POSTAL STATE ABBREVIATION AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
              NUMBER
      880010 FIPS STATE CODE
      880011 FIPS STATE AND COUNTY CODE
      880012 ICPSR STATE CODE
      880013 ICPSR STATE AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CODE
      880014 TRACT/ENUMERATION DISTRICT INDICATOR
      880015 1980 CENSUS TRACT
      880016 1980 CENSUS ENUMERATION DISTRICT
      880017 1980 CENSUS PLACE CODE
      880018 FIPS 1980 SMSA CODE
      880019 FIPS 1980 SCSA CODE
      880020 SIZE OF PLACE OF INTERVIEW
      880021 ACTUAL POPULATION OF PLACE OF INTERVIEW
      880022 1980 BELT CODE
      880023 1980 MINOR CIVIL DIVISION
      880024 SAMPLING ERROR CODE
      880025 SELECTION TABLE


                        PRE-ELECTION INFORMATION

      880026 INTERVIEWER'S ID NUMBER
      880027 REFUSAL CONVERSION INDICATOR
      880028 PERSUASION LETTER REQUESTED
      880029 FINAL CALL NUMBER
      880030 FINAL RESULT CODE
      880031 IF R IS FEMALE, HAS R LEGALLY CHANGED HER NAME
      880032 PHONE NUMBER OBTAINED
      880033 INTERVIEWER'S RACE
      880034 INTERVIEWER'S ETHNICITY
      880035 INTERVIEWER'S AGE, BRACKETED
      880036 INTERVIEWER'S YEARS OF WORK, BRACKETED

      880037 INTERVIEWER'S SEX
      880038 INTERVIEWER'S EDUCATION, BRACKETED
      880039 INTERVIEW QUARTER CODE
      880040 FORM TYPE
      880041 INTERVIEW PRIMARY AREA
      880042 INTERVIEWER'S INTERVIEW NUMBER
      880043 DATE COMPLETED - MONTH
      880044 DATE COMPLETED - DAY
      880045 LENGTH OF INTERVIEW
      880046 LENGTH OF POST-EDITING
      880047 BEGINNING TIME - LOCAL


                        POST-ELECTION INFORMATION

      880048 RESPONDENT POST-ELECTION CASE ID
      880049 INTERVIEWER'S ID NUMBER
      880050 TYPE OF CONGRESSIONAL RACE
      880051 TYPE OF SENATE RACE
      880052 FORM TYPE
      880053 REFUSAL CONVERSION INDICATOR
      880054 PERSUASION LETTER REQUESTED
      880055 FINAL CALL NUMBER
      880056 FINAL RESULT CODE
      880057 CHECKPOINT: R'S PHONE NUMBER/PHONE STATUS DIFFERENT
      880058 PHONE NUMBER OBTAINED
      880059 IS R'S NUMBER LISTED IN THE PHONE DIRECTORY
      880060 IS PHONE LISTED IN R'S NAME
      880061 IS THERE A REASON THAT WE SHOULD NOT INTERVIEW R
            BY TELEPHONE
      880062 INTERVIEWER'S INTERVIEW NUMBER
      880063 DATE COMPLETED - MONTH
      880064 DATE COMPLETED - DAY
      880065 LENGTH OF INTERVIEW
      880066 LENGTH OF PRE-EDITING
      880067 LENGTH OF POST-EDITING
      880068 BEGINNING TIME - LOCAL
      880069 DID R REFUSE INTERVIEW INITIALLY
      880070 DID R BREAK ANY APPOINTMENTS

                       R'S RESISTANCE TO INTERVIEW

      880071 WAS THERE RESISTANCE TO THE INTERVIEW FROM R
      880072 NOT INTERESTED, DOESN'T VOTE
      880073 SURVEYS WASTE OF TIME, PREVIOUS BAD EXPERIENCE
      880074 VERY ILL
      880075 "TOO BUSY"
      880076 STRESSFUL FAMILY SITUATION
      880077 CONFIDENTIALITY
      880078 FIRST INTERVIEW TOO LONG
      880079 DIDN'T LIKE FIRST INTERVIEW
      880080 DIDN'T LIKE FIRST INTERVIEWER
      880081 NO REASON GIVEN
      880082 OTHER REASON GIVEN FOR R'S RESISTANCE
      880083 WAS R SUSPICIOUS
      880084 WAS R HOSTILE

      880085 WAS R RUDE
      880086 WAS R THREATENING
      880087 IF NON-INTERVIEW, WAS R POLITE BUT FIRM
      880088 OTHER RESISTANCE REASON
      880089 WAS THANK YOU LETTER SENT TO R


                          HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

      880090 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD
      880091 NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE ADULTS
      880092 NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER SIX YEARS OLD
      880093 NUMBER OF CHILDREN SIX TO NINE YEARS OLD
      880094 NUMBER OF CHILDREN TEN TO THIRTEEN YEARS OLD
      880095 NUMBER OF CHILDREN FOURTEEN TO SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD
      880096 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION


              R'S INTEREST IN AND PREDICTIONS FOR CAMPAIGN

      880097 R'S INTEREST IN THE CAMPAIGN
      880098 R'S PREDICTION OF WINNER IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
      880099 DOES R THINK PRESIDENTIAL RACE WILL BE CLOSE
      880100 WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DOES R THINK WILL
            CARRY R'S STATE
      880101 DOES R THINK THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE WILL BE CLOSE IN
            R'S STATE
      880102 DOES R CARE WHICH PARTY WINS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION


                            BUSH AS CANDIDATE

      880103 IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT BUSH THAT WOULD MAKE R VOTE
            FOR HIM
      880104 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH - FIRST MENTION
      880105 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH - SECOND MENTION
      880106 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH - THIRD MENTION
      880107 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH - FOURTH MENTION
      880108 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH - FIFTH MENTION
      880109 IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT BUSH THAT WOULD MAKE R VOTE
            AGAINST HIM
      880110 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST BUSH - FIRST MENTION
      880111 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST BUSH - SECOND MENTION
      880112 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST BUSH - THIRD MENTION
      880113 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST BUSH - FOURTH MENTION
      880114 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST BUSH - FIFTH MENTION


                          DUKAKIS AS CANDIDATE

      880115 IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT DUKAKIS THAT WOULD MAKE R
            VOTE FOR HIM
      880116 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR DUKAKIS - FIRST MENTION
      880117 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR DUKAKIS - SECOND MENTION
      880118 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR DUKAKIS - THIRD MENTION
      880119 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR DUKAKIS - FOURTH MENTION

      880120 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR DUKAKIS - FIFTH MENTION
      880121 IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT DUKAKIS THAT WOULD MAKE R
            VOTE AGAINST HIM
      880122 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST DUKAKIS - FIRST MENTION
      880123 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST DUKAKIS - SECOND MENTION
      880124 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST DUKAKIS - THIRD MENTION
      880125 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST DUKAKIS - FOURTH MENTION
      880126 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST DUKAKIS - FIFTH MENTION


                     R'S ATTENTION TO CAMPAIGN/MEDIA

      880127 HOW OFTEN DID R DISCUSS POLITICS IN THE PAST WEEK
      880128 HOW OFTEN DID R WATCH NEWS ON TV IN THE PAST WEEK
      880129 HOW MUCH ATTENTION DID R GIVE TO THE PRESIDENTIAL
      880129 CAMPAIGN NEWS ON TV
      880130 HOW OFTEN DID R READ A DAILY NEWSPAPER IN THE
            PAST WEEK
      880131 WHICH PAPER DID R READ - FIRST MENTION
      880132 WHICH PAPER DID R READ - SECOND MENTION
      880133 WHICH PAPER DID R READ - THIRD MENTION
      880134 DID R READ ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN IN ANY NEWSPAPER
      880135 HOW MUCH ATTENTION DID R GIVE TO THE PRESIDENTIAL
            CAMPAIGN NEWS IN THE NEWSPAPER
      880136 DID R READ ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN IN ANY MAGAZINES
      880137 HOW MUCH ATTENTION DID R GIVE TO THE PRESIDENTIAL
            CAMPAIGN NEWS IN MAGAZINES
      880138 DID R LISTEN TO CAMPAIGN SPEECHES OR DISCUSSIONS
            ON THE RADIO
      880139 HOW MANY CAMPAIGN SPEECHES/DISCUSSIONS ON THE RADIO
            DID R LISTEN TO


          R'S ASSESSMENT OF REAGAN AS PRESIDENT (PRE-ELECTION)

      880140 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF
            HIS JOB AS PRESIDENT
      880141 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF REAGAN'S
            HANDLING OF HIS JOB


              REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

      880142 WHICH REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DOES R
            THINK WOULD MAKE THE BEST PRESIDENT
      880143 DOES R THINK BUSH WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT
            THAN ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE
      880144 DOES R THINK REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE NAMED IN Q. D1
            WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN BUSH
      880145 WHICH DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE DOES R THINK WOULD
            MAKE THE BEST PRESIDENT
      880146 DOES R THINK DUKAKIS WOULD MAKE A BETTER
            PRESIDENT THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
      880147 DOES R THINK THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE NAMED IN
            Q. D2 WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN DUKAKIS



                   R'S PARTICIPATION IN PRIMARY/CAUCUS

      880148 DID R VOTE IN CAUCUS/PRIMARY ELECTION
      880149 DID R VOTE IN REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC
            PRIMARY/CAUCUS
      880150 WHICH REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE DID R VOTE FOR IN
            STATE CAUCUS/PRIMARY
      880151 WHICH DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE DID R VOTE FOR IN
            STATE PRIMARY/CAUCUS


                FEELING THERMOMETERS - POLITICAL FIGURES

      880152 FEELING THERMOMETER - ROBERT DOLE
      880153 FEELING THERMOMETER - MARIO CUOMO
      880154 FEELING THERMOMETER - GEORGE BUSH
      880155 FEELING THERMOMETER - MICHAEL DUKAKIS
      880156 FEELING THERMOMETER - PAT ROBERTSON
      880157 FEELING THERMOMETER - TED KENNEDY
      880158 FEELING THERMOMETER - RONALD REAGAN
      880159 FEELING THERMOMETER - LLOYD BENTSEN
      880160 FEELING THERMOMETER - DAN QUAYLE
      880161 FEELING THERMOMETER - MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
      880162 FEELING THERMOMETER - JESSE JACKSON
      880163 FEELING THERMOMETER - OLIVER NORTH
      880164 FEELING THERMOMETER - DEMOCRATIC PARTY
      880165 FEELING THERMOMETER - REPUBLICAN PARTY


               PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION SECTION D

      880166 WAS QUESTION D1 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880167 WAS QUESTION D2 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880168 WAS QUESTION D4A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880169 WAS QUESTION D4B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880170 WAS QUESTION D4C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880171 WAS QUESTION D4D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880172 WAS QUESTION D4E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880173 WAS QUESTION D4F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880174 WAS QUESTION D4G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880175 WAS QUESTION D4H PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880176 WAS QUESTION D4J PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880177 WAS QUESTION D4K PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880178 WAS QUESTION D4M PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880179 WAS QUESTION D4N PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880180 WAS QUESTION D5A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880181 WAS QUESTION D5B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER


              WHAT R LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PARTY

      880182 WHETHER R LIKES ANYTHING ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
      880183 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FIRST MENTION
      880184 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-SECOND MENTION
      880185 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-THIRD MENTION
      880186 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FOURTH MENTION
      880187 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FIFTH MENTION
      880188 WHETHER R DISLIKES ANYTHING ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC
            PARTY
      880189 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FIRST
            MENTION
      880190 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-SECOND
            MENTION
      880191 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-THIRD
            MENTION
      880192 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FOURTH
            MENTION
      880193 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FIFTH
            MENTION


              WHAT R LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN PARTY

      880194 WHETHER R LIKES ANYTHING ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
      880195 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-FIRST MENTION
      880196 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-SECOND MENTION
      880197 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-THIRD MENTION
      880198 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-FOURTH MENTION
      880199 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-FIFTH MENTION
      880200 WHETHER R DISLIKES ANYTHING ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN
            PARTY
      880201 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-FIRST
            MENTION
      880202 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-SECOND
            MENTION
      880203 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-THIRD
            MENTION
      880204 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-FOURTH
            MENTION
      880205 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN PARTY-FIFTH
            MENTION


                    R'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION

      880206 DOES R FEEL BETTER/WORSE OFF FINANCIALLY THAN A
            YEAR AGO
      880207 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE OFF DOES R FEEL
      880208 WILL R BE BETTER/WORSE OFF FINANCIALLY A YEAR FROM
            NOW
      880209 WILL R BE MUCH OR SOMEWHAT BETTER/WORSE OFF A YEAR
            FROM NOW
      880210 HAS R'S INCOME STAYED AT/ABOVE/BELOW THE COST OF
            LIVING
      880211 HOW MUCH HAS R'S INCOME RISEN ABOVE/FALLEN BEHIND
            THE COST OF LIVING
      880212 HAS FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY MADE A DIFFERENCE ON R'S
            FINANCIAL POSITION
      880213 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE HAS IT MADE R


                   R'S FEELINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE: BUSH

      880214 WHETHER BUSH MAKES R ANGRY
      880215 WHETHER BUSH MAKES R HOPEFUL
      880216 WHETHER BUSH MAKES R AFRAID OF HIM
      880217 WHETHER BUSH MAKES R PROUD


                  R'S FEELINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE: DUKAKIS

      880218 WHETHER DUKAKIS MAKES R ANGRY
      880219 WHETHER DUKAKIS MAKES R HOPEFUL
      880220 WHETHER DUKAKIS MAKES R AFRAID OF HIM
      880221 WHETHER DUKAKIS MAKES R PROUD


                  R'S FEELINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE: JACKSON

      880222 WHETHER JACKSON MAKES R ANGRY
      880223 WHETHER JACKSON MAKES R HOPEFUL
      880224 WHETHER JACKSON MAKES R AFRAID OF HIM
      880225 WHETHER JACKSON MAKES R PROUD


             R'S ASSESSMENT OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF ECONOMY
                             (PRE-ELECTION)

      880226 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF
            THE ECONOMY
      880227 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF REAGAN'S
            HANDLING OF THE ECONOMY

                 POSITIONS ON LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE

      880228 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-R
      880229 IF R HAD TO CHOOSE, WOULD R CONSIDER SELF A LIBERAL/
            CONSERVATIVE
      880230 SUMMARY: R'S LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE PLACEMENT
      880231 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-DUKAKIS
      880232 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-BUSH
      880233 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-JACKSON
      880234 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY
      880235 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY
      880236 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-REAGAN
      880237 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT


            R'S OPINION ON NATIONAL/STATE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
                            IN THE PAST YEAR

      880238 HOW DOES R FEEL THE COUNTRY IS DOING
      880239 DOES R THINK UNEMPLOYMENT HAS GOTTEN BETTER/
            WORSE/STAYED THE SAME IN THE PAST YEAR
      880240 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS UNEMPLOYMENT
      880241 DOES R THINK THAT INFLATION HAS GOTTEN BETTER/
            WORSE/STAYED THE SAME IN THE PAST YEAR
      880242 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS INFLATION
      880243 DOES R THINK THE NATION'S ECONOMY HAS GOTTEN BETTER/
            WORSE/STAYED THE SAME IN THE PAST YEAR
      880244 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS THE NATION'S ECONOMY
      880245 DOES R THINK FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY HAS MADE THE
            ECONOMY BETTER/WORSE/NOT MADE MUCH DIFFERENCE
      880246 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE HAS FEDERAL POLICY MADE THE
            ECONOMY
      880247 DOES R SEE THE ECONOMY GETTING BETTER/WORSE/STAYING
            ABOUT THE SAME IN THE NEXT YEAR
      880248 DOES R FEEL THE BUDGET DEFICIT IS A VERY/SOMEWHAT/NOT
            SERIOUS PROBLEM
      880249 WOULD R PAY MORE TAXES TO REDUCE THE BUDGET DEFICIT
      880250 DOES R THINK THE STATE'S ECONOMY HAS GOTTEN BETTER/
            WORSE/STAYED THE SAME IN THE PAST YEAR
      880251 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS THE STATE ECONOMY


              R'S OPINIONS ON FOREIGN RELATIONS - PAST YEAR

      880252 DOES R THINK THE UNITED STATES' POSITION HAS GROWN
            STRONGER/WEAKER/STAYED THE SAME IN THE PAST YEAR
      880253 DOES R THINK THE REPUBLICANS/DEMOCRATS COULD BETTER
            KEEP THE U.S. OUT OF WAR IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS
      880254 DOES R AGREE/DISAGREE U.S. SHOULD STAY OUT OF
            PROBLEMS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD


      880R'S ASSESSMENT OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF FOREIGN RELATIONS
                             (PRE-ELECTION)

      880255 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF
            FOREIGN RELATIONS
      880256 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF REAGAN'S
            HANDLING OF FOREIGN RELATIONS


           PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION SECTIONS G AND H

      880257 WAS QUESTION G1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880258 WAS QUESTION G1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880259 WAS QUESTION G1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880260 WAS QUESTION G1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880261 WAS QUESTION G2A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880262 WAS QUESTION G2B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880263 WAS QUESTION G2C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880264 WAS QUESTION G2D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880265 WAS QUESTION G3A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880266 WAS QUESTION G3B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880267 WAS QUESTION G3C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880268 WAS QUESTION G3D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880269 WAS QUESTION H7 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880270 WAS QUESTION H8 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER

                        R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION

      880271 R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION
      880272 STRENGTH OF R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION
      880273 R CLOSER TO REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRATIC PARTY
      880274 SUMMARY: R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION


                  QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATE: BUSH

      880275 HOW WELL DOES "INTELLIGENT" DESCRIBE BUSH
      880276 HOW WELL DOES "COMPASSIONATE" DESCRIBE BUSH
      880277 HOW WELL DOES "MORAL" DESCRIBE BUSH
      880278 HOW WELL DOES "INSPIRING" DESCRIBE BUSH
      880279 HOW WELL DOES "PROVIDES STRONG LEADERSHIP" DESCRIBE
            BUSH
      880280 HOW WELL DOES "DECENT" DESCRIBE BUSH
      880281 HOW WELL DOES "REALLY CARES ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU"
            DESCRIBE BUSH
      880282 HOW WELL DOES "KNOWLEDGEABLE" DESCRIBE BUSH
      880283 HOW WELL DOES "HONEST" DESCRIBE BUSH


                 QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATE: DUKAKIS

      880284 HOW WELL DOES "INTELLIGENT" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS
      880285 HOW WELL DOES "COMPASSIONATE" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS
      880286 HOW WELL DOES "MORAL" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS
      880287 HOW WELL DOES "INSPIRING" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS
      880288 HOW WELL DOES "PROVIDES STRONG LEADERSHIP"
            DESCRIBE DUKAKIS
      880289 HOW WELL DOES "DECENT" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS
      880290 HOW WELL DOES "REALLY CARES ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU"
            DESCRIBE DUKAKIS
      880291 HOW WELL DOES "KNOWLEDGEABLE" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS
      880292 HOW WELL DOES "HONEST" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS


                 QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATE: JACKSON

      880293 HOW WELL DOES "INTELLIGENT" DESCRIBE JACKSON
      880294 HOW WELL DOES "COMPASSIONATE" DESCRIBE JACKSON
      880295 HOW WELL DOES "MORAL" DESCRIBE JACKSON
      880296 HOW WELL DOES "INSPIRING" DESCRIBE JACKSON
      880297 HOW WELL DOES "PROVIDES STRONG LEADERSHIP" DESCRIBE
            JACKSON
      880298 HOW WELL DOES "DECENT" DESCRIBE JACKSON
      880299 HOW WELL DOES "REALLY CARES ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU"
            DESCRIBE JACKSON
      880300 HOW WELL DOES "KNOWLEDGEABLE" DESCRIBE JACKSON
      880301 HOW WELL DOES "HONEST" DESCRIBE JACKSON


           POSITION ON MORE/LESS GOVT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE

      880302 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-R
      880303 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-DUKAKIS
      880304 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-BUSH
      880305 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-JACKSON
      880306 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-FEDERAL
            GOVERNMENT
      880307 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-REPUBLICAN
            PARTY
      880308 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-DEMOCRATIC
            PARTY
      880309 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-REAGAN


              POSITION ON MORE/LESS DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE

      880310 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-R
      880311 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-DUKAKIS
      880312 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-BUSH
      880313 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-JACKSON
      880314 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
      880315 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY
      880316 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY
      880317 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-REAGAN


                 POSITION ON GOVT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE

      880318 GOVERNMENT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE-R
      880319 GOVERNMENT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE-DUKAKIS
      880320 GOVERNMENT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE-BUSH
      880321 GOVERNMENT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE-REPUBLICAN
            PARTY
      880322 GOVERNMENT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE-DEMOCRATIC
            PARTY


              POSITION ON GOVT GUARANTEED LIVING/JOB SCALE

      880323 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-R
      880324 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-DUKAKIS
      880325 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-BUSH
      880326 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-JACKSON
      880327 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-FEDERAL
            GOVERNMENT
      880328 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-REPUBLICAN
            PARTY
      880329 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-DEMOCRATIC
            PARTY
      880330 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-REAGAN

      880331 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: FORM A OR B


          POSITION ON IMPROVING SOC/ECON STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE

      880332 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-R
      880333 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-DUKAKIS
      880334 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-BUSH
      880335 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-JACKSON
      880336 SOCIAL ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-FEDERAL
            GOVERNMENT
      880337 SOCIAL ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-REPUBLICAN
            PARTY
      880338 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-DEMOCRATIC
            PARTY
      880339 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-REAGAN


         POSITION ON IMPROVING SOC/ECON STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE

      880340 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-R
      880341 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-DUKAKIS
      880342 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-BUSH
      880343 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-JACKSON
      880344 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-FEDERAL
            GOVERNMENT
      880345 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-
            REPUBLICAN PARTY
      880346 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-
            DEMOCRATIC PARTY
      880347 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-REAGAN


          INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUDGET PROGRAMS
                      (SEE ALSO VARIABLES 377-386)

      880348 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON SOCIAL SECURITY
      880349 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FOOD STAMPS
      880350 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON AID TO CONTRAS
      880351 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON STAR WARS
      880352 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FIGHTING THE DISEASE
            AIDS


           DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS CUT SOC SECURITY/RAISE TAXES

      880353 WHICH PARTY IS MORE LIKELY TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY
      880354 WHICH PARTY IS MORE LIKELY TO RAISE TAXES


               PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION SECTION L

      880355 WAS QUESTION L8A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880356 WAS QUESTION L8B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880357 WAS QUESTION L8C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880358 WAS QUESTION L8D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880359 WAS QUESTION L8E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880360 WAS QUESTION L9 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880361 WAS QUESTION L10 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER


                R'S OPINION ON CHANCES OF GETTING IN WAR

      880362 DOES R THINK CHANCES OF GETTING INTO A WAR HAVE
            INCREASED/DECREASED/HAVEN'T CHANGED
      880363 HOW MUCH HAVE CHANCES INCREASED/DECREASED


               R'S OPINION ON U.S.-SOVIET ARMS AGREEMENTS

      880364 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF U.S.-SOVIET ARMS AGREEMENTS
      880365 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE


               R'S OPINION ON U.S. MILITARY IN MIDDLE EAST

      880366 R FAVORS/OPPOSES AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES IN THE
            MIDDLE EAST TO PROTECT OIL SHIPMENTS
      880367 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE


                POSITION ON COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE

      880368 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-R
      880369 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-DUKAKIS
      880370 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-BUSH
      880371 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-JACKSON
      880372 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
      880373 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY
      880374 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY
      880375 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-REAGAN


                    R'S OPINION ON LIMITS ON IMPORTS

      880376 R FAVORS/OPPOSES LIMITS ON FOREIGN IMPORTS


          INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUDGET PROGRAMS
                      (SEE ALSO VARIABLES 348-352)

      880377 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON PROTECTION OF THE
            ENVIRONMENT
      880378 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FINANCIAL AID FOR
            COLLEGE STUDENTS
      880379 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON ASSISTANCE FOR THE
            UNEMPLOYED
      880380 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON SPACE AND SCIENTIFIC
            RESEARCH
      880381 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON PROGRAMS THAT ASSIST
            BLACKS
      880382 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON CHILDCARE
      880383 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
      880384 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
      880385 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON THE HOMELESS
      880386 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING FOR THE WAR ON DRUGS


                    POSITION ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE

      880387 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-R
      880388 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-DUKAKIS
      880389 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-BUSH
      880390 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY
      880391 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY
      880392 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-REAGAN


                      R'S OPINIONS ON DRUG PROBLEM

      880393 HOW IMPORTANT IS THE DRUG PROBLEM IN THE U.S.
      880394 WILL BUSH/DUKAKIS DO BETTER JOB OF SOLVING THIS
            PROBLEM


                         R'S OPINION ON ABORTION

      880395 R'S POSITION ON ABORTION


           R'S OPINION ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (PRE-ELECTION)

      880396 DOES R EXPECT TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER
      880397 WHO WILL R VOTE FOR IN THE ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT
      880398 HOW STRONG IS R'S PREFERENCE FOR PRESIDENTIAL
            CANDIDATE

      880399 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: FORM A OR B


               PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION SECTION N

      880400 WAS QUESTION N1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880401 WAS QUESTION N1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880402 WAS QUESTION N1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880403 WAS QUESTION N1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880404 WAS QUESTION N1E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880405 WAS QUESTION N1F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880406 WAS QUESTION N1G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880407 WAS QUESTION N1H PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880408 WAS QUESTION N1J PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880409 WAS QUESTION N1K PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880410 WAS QUESTION N3 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880411 WAS QUESTION N3A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER


                      PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT R

      880412 R'S RACE
      880413 R'S SEX
      880414 R'S AGE
      880415 R'S DATE OF BIRTH - MONTH
      880416 R'S DATE OF BIRTH - YEAR
      880417 R'S RECODED AGE
      880418 R'S MARITAL STATUS

                              R'S EDUCATION

      880419 HIGHEST GRADE OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY R
      880420 DOES R HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
      880421 R'S HIGHEST COLLEGE DEGREE
      880422 SUMMARY: R'S EDUCATION

      880423 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: R IS MARRIED OR LIVING
            WITH PARTNER


                         EDUCATION OF R'S SPOUSE

      880424 HIGHEST GRADE OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY SPOUSE
      880425 DOES SPOUSE HAVE HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
      880426 SPOUSE'S HIGHEST COLLEGE DEGREE
      880427 SUMMARY: SPOUSE'S EDUCATION


                         R'S OCCUPATION SECTION

      880428 R'S PRESENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS
      880429 SUMMARY: R'S WORKING STATUS
      880430 HAS R (UNEMPLOYED) EVER WORKED FOR PAY
      880431 WHEN DID R RETIRE
      880432 HAS R (DISABLED) EVER WORKED FOR PAY
      880433 IS R (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) WORKING NOW
      880434 HAS R (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) WORKED IN LAST SIX MONTHS


             OCCUPATION - R WORKING OR TEMPORARILY LAID OFF

      880435 R'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE
      880436 R'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED CENSUS
            OCCUPATION CODE
      880437 R'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE
      880438 IS R SELF-EMPLOYED
      880439 IS R EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      880440 NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK R WORKS
      880441 IS R SATISFIED WITH NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED
      880442 HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT JOB SECURITY

      880443 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS R WORKING NOW

      880444 WAS R OUT OF WORK WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS
      880445 HAS R HAD TO TAKE A PAY CUT/REDUCE HOURS WITHIN THE
            LAST SIX MONTHS


             OCCUPATION - R UNEMPLOYED, RETIRED OR DISABLED

      880446 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE
      880447 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED CENSUS OCCUPATION
            CODE
      880448 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE
      880449 ON R'S LAST REGULAR JOB, WAS R SELF-EMPLOYED
      880450 WAS R EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      880451 DID R WORK WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS
      880452 NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK R WORKED

      880453 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS R UNEMPLOYED

      880454 IS R DOING ANY WORK FOR PAY AT THE PRESENT TIME
      880455 IS R LOOKING FOR WORK AT THE PRESENT TIME
      880456 HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND A JOB


                   OCCUPATION - R HOMEMAKER OR STUDENT
      880457 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE
      880458 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED CENSUS OCCUPATION
            CODE
      880459 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE
      880460 WAS R SELF-EMPLOYED ON LAST JOB
      880461 WAS R EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      880462 NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK R WORKED ON LAST JOB
      880463 IS R LOOKING FOR WORK AT THE PRESENT TIME
      880464 HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND A JOB


                     R'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED

      880465 R'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE
      880466 R'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED 1980 CODE
      880467 R'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE
      880468 R SELF-EMPLOYED
      880469 EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      880470 NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED PER WEEK
      880471 IS R WORRIED ABOUT JOB SECURITY
      880472 HAS R (UNEMPLOYED/RETIRED/DISABLED) HAD A JOB IN
            THE PAST SIX MONTHS
      880473 IS R (UNEMPLOYED/RETIRED/DISABLED) LOOKING FOR WORK
            AT PRESENT TIME
      880474 HAS R (UNEMPLOYED/DISABLED) EVER DONE ANY WORK FOR PAY

      880475 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: R IS MALE AND MARRIED/
            PARTNERED


                      WIFE/PARTNER OF R OCCUPATION

      880476 IS R'S WIFE/PARTNER WORKING NOW

      880477 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS R MARRIED AND FEMALE


                 HUSBAND/PARTNER OF R OCCUPATION SECTION

      880478 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S PRESENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS
      880479 SUMMARY: HUSBAND/PARTNER'S WORKING STATUS
      880480 HAS HUSBAND/PARTNER (UNEMPLOYED) EVER DONE ANY WORK
            FOR PAY
      880481 WHEN DID HUSBAND/PARTNER RETIRE
      880482 HAS HUSBAND/PARTNER (DISABLED) EVER DONE ANY WORK
            FOR PAY
      880483 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) DOING
            ANY WORK FOR PAY AT THE PRESENT TIME
      880484 HAS HUSBAND/PARTNER (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) WORKED
            FOR PAY IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS


          OCCUPATION - HUSBAND WORKING OR TEMPORARILY LAID OFF

      880485 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - CENSUS
            OCCUPATION CODE
      880486 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED
            CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE
      880487 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - CENSUS
            INDUSTRY CODE
      880488 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER SELF-EMPLOYED
      880489 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL
            GOVERNMENT
      880490 NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK HUSBAND/PARTNER WORKS
      880491 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER SATISFIED WITH NUMBER OF HOURS
            WORKED
      880492 HOW WORRIED IS HUSBAND/PARTNER ABOUT JOB SECURITY

      880493 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS HUSBAND/PARTNER WORKING
            NOW

      880494 WAS HUSBAND/PARTNER OUT OF WORK WITHIN THE LAST
            SIX MONTHS
      880495 HAS HUSBAND/PARTNER HAD TO TAKE A PAY CUT/REDUCE
            HOURS WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS


          OCCUPATION - HUSBAND UNEMPLOYED, RETIRED OR DISABLED

      880496 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS
            OCCUPATION CODE
      880497 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S LAST OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED
            CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE
      880498 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS
            INDUSTRY CODE
      880499 WAS HUSBAND/PARTNER SELF-EMPLOYED ON LAST JOB
      880500 WAS HUSBAND/PARTNER EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL
            GOVERNMENT ON LAST JOB
      880501 WAS HUSBAND/PARTNER EMPLOYED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS
      880502 NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK HUSBAND/PARTNER WORKED

      880503 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS HUSBAND/PARTNER UNEMPLOYED

      880504 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER DOING ANY WORK FOR PAY AT THE
            PRESENT TIME
      880505 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER LOOKING FOR WORK AT THE PRESENT
            TIME
      880506 HOW WORRIED IS HUSBAND/PARTNER ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE
            TO FIND A JOB


            HUSBAND/PARTNER OF R OCCUPATIONAL DATA  - STACKED

      880507 HUSBAND'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION
            CODE
      880508 HUSBAND'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED 1980
            CODE
      880509 HUSBAND'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY
            CODE
      880510 IS/WAS HUSBAND SELF-EMPLOYED
      880511 IS/WAS HUSBAND EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL
            GOVERNMENT
      880512 HUSBAND - NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED PER WEEK
      880513 HUSBAND - WORRIED ABOUT JOB SECURITY
      880514 HAS HUSBAND (UNEMPLOYED/RETIRED/DISABLED) HAD A JOB IN
            THE PAST SIX MONTHS
      880515 IS HUSBAND (UNEMPLOYED/RETIRED/DISABLED) LOOKING FOR
            WORK AT THE PRESENT TIME
      880516 HAS HUSBAND (UNEMPLOYED/DISABLED) EVER DONE ANY WORK
            FOR PAY


                          LABOR UNION POSITION

      880517 DOES ANYONE IN R'S HOUSEHOLD BELONG TO A LABOR UNION
      880518 WHO BELONGS TO A LABOR UNION

      880519 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS R ONLY FAMILY MEMBER AGE
            14 OR OLDER


                  R'S FAMILY POSITION AND SOCIAL CLASS

      880520 FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES
      880521 R'S INCOME BEFORE TAXES
      880522 DOES R THINK OF SELF AS BELONGING TO A SOCIAL CLASS
      880523 DOES R THINK OF SELF AS MIDDLE OR WORKING CLASS
      880524 DOES R THINK OF SELF AS AVERAGE OR UPPER MIDDLE/
            WORKING CLASS
      880525 SUMMARY: R'S SOCIAL CLASS
      880526 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO MIDDLE/WORKING CLASS


                  R'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND PRACTICE

      880527 R'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND DENOMINATION
      880528 IS RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MENTIONED BY R CHRISTIAN
      880529 DOES R CONSIDER SELF A BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN
      880530 HOW OFTEN DOES R ATTEND CHURCH/SYNAGOGUE
      880531 DOES R ATTEND CHURCH/SYNAGOGUE ONCE A WEEK OR MORE
            OFTEN
      880532 DID R WATCH/LISTEN TO RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS ON TV/RADIO
            DURING THE PAST WEEK
      880533 HOW OFTEN DID R WATCH/LISTEN TO RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS

                           R'S ETHNIC IDENTITY

      880534 WHAT DOES R CONSIDER HIS/HER MAIN ETHNIC GROUP
            (OTHER THAN AMERICAN) - FIRST MENTION
      880535 WHAT DOES R CONSIDER THEIR MAIN ETHNIC GROUP
            (OTHER THAN AMERICAN) - SECOND MENTION
      880536 NUMBER OF ETHNIC GROUPS R MENTIONED
      880537 WITH WHICH GROUP DOES R MOST CLOSELY IDENTIFY
      880538 WERE R'S PARENTS BORN IN THIS COUNTRY

      880539 CHECKPOINT: DID R MENTION SOME HISPANIC GROUP

      880540 IS R OF SPANISH OR HISPANIC ORIGIN/DESCENT
      880541 CATEGORY THAT BEST DESCRIBES R'S HISPANIC ORIGIN


                    PERSONAL INFORMATION: R'S PARENTS

      880542 R'S FATHER'S MAIN OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION
            CODE
      880543 DID R'S MOTHER HAVE A JOB
      880544 R'S MOTHER'S MAIN OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION
            CODE


                   PERSONAL INFORMATION: R'S COMMUNITY

      880545 R'S BIRTHPLACE
      880546 WHERE DID R GROW UP
      880547 COMMUNITY TYPE R GREW UP IN
      880548 HOW LONG HAS R LIVED IN PRESENT CITY/TOWN/TOWNSHIP/
            COUNTY
      880549 WHERE DID R LIVE BEFORE - CITY
      880550 WHERE DID R LIVE BEFORE - STATE OR COUNTRY
      880551 HOW LONG HAS R LIVED IN THIS HOUSE/APARTMENT
      880552 DOES R/R'S FAMILY OWN OR RENT R'S HOME


                  CONDITIONS OF PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW

      880553 OTHERS PRESENT AT INTERVIEW
      880554 R'S COOPERATION
      880555 R'S LEVEL OF INFORMATION ABOUT POLITICS/PUBLIC
            AFFAIRS
      880556 R'S APPARENT INTELLIGENCE
      880557 WAS R SUSPICIOUS BEFORE INTERVIEW
      880558 R'S INTEREST IN THE INTERVIEW
      880559 R'S SINCERITY
      880560 DID R REPORT INCOME CORRECTLY
      880561 INTERVIEWER'S ESTIMATE OF R'S FAMILY INCOME
      880562 WAS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED IN ENGLISH
      880563 LANGUAGE IN WHICH INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED (IF OTHER
            THAN ENGLISH)


                          POST-ELECTION SURVEY


                         CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN

      880564 R'S INTEREST IN THE CAMPAIGN
      880565 DOES R REMEMBER THE CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES
      880566 NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 1
      880567 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 1
      880568 COLLAPSED CODE FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE 1
      880569 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY -
            CANDIDATE 1
      880570 NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 2
      880571 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 2
      880572 COLLAPSED CODE FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE 2
      880573 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY -
            CANDIDATE 2
      880574 NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 3
      880575 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 3
      880576 COLLAPSED CODE FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE 3
      880577 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY -
            CANDIDATE 3

      880578 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: U.S. SENATE RACE IN STATE?


                             SENATE CAMPAIGN

      880579 DOES R REMEMBER THE SENATE CANDIDATES
      880580 NUMBER OF SENATE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 1
      880581 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 1
      880582 COLLAPSED CODE FOR SENATE CANDIDATE 1
      880583 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY -
            CANDIDATE 1
      880584 NUMBER OF SENATE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 2
      880585 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 2
      880586 COLLAPSED CODE FOR SENATE CANDIDATE 2
      880587 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY -
            CANDIDATE 2
      880588 NUMBER OF SENATE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 3
      880589 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 3
      880590 COLLAPSED CODE FOR SENATE CANDIDATE 3
      880591 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY -
            CANDIDATE 3


                 FEELING THERMOMETER: POLITICAL FIGURES

      880592 FEELING THERMOMETER - GEORGE BUSH
      880593 FEELING THERMOMETER - MICHAEL DUKAKIS
      880594 FEELING THERMOMETER - JESSE JACKSON
      880595 FEELING THERMOMETER - JIMMY CARTER
      880596 FEELING THERMOMETER - DEMOCRATIC U.S. SENATE
            CANDIDATE
      880597 FEELING THERMOMETER - REPUBLICAN U.S. SENATE
            CANDIDATE

      880598 FEELING THERMOMETER - U.S. SENATE INCUMBENT -
            CANDIDATE 1 (TERM IS NOT UP)
      880599 FEELING THERMOMETER - U.S. SENATE INCUMBENT -
            CANDIDATE 2
      880600 FEELING THERMOMETER - U.S. SENATE INCUMBENT -
            CANDIDATE 3
      880601 FEELING THERMOMETER - DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE
      880602 FEELING THERMOMETER - REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE
      880603 FEELING THERMOMETER - INDEPENDENT/THIRD PARTY HOUSE
            CANDIDATE


                 FEELING THERMOMETER: GROUPS IN SOCIETY

      880604 FEELING THERMOMETER - LABOR UNIONS
      880605 FEELING THERMOMETER - FEMINISTS
      880606 FEELING THERMOMETER - CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS
      880607 FEELING THERMOMETER - PEOPLE ON WELFARE
      880608 FEELING THERMOMETER - WOMEN
      880609 FEELING THERMOMETER - CONSERVATIVES
      880610 FEELING THERMOMETER - POOR PEOPLE
      880611 FEELING THERMOMETER - CATHOLICS
      880612 FEELING THERMOMETER - BIG BUSINESS
      880613 FEELING THERMOMETER - BLACKS
      880614 FEELING THERMOMETER - EVANGELICAL GROUPS ACTIVE IN
            POLITICS
      880615 FEELING THERMOMETER - FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
      880616 FEELING THERMOMETER - LIBERALS
      880617 FEELING THERMOMETER - HISPANICS
      880618 FEELING THERMOMETER - THE MILITARY
      880619 FEELING THERMOMETER - THE ELDERLY
      880620 FEELING THERMOMETER - ENVIRONMENTALISTS
      880621 FEELING THERMOMETER - U.S. SUPREME COURT
      880622 FEELING THERMOMETER - ILLEGAL ALIENS
      880623 FEELING THERMOMETER - PALESTINIANS
      880624 FEELING THERMOMETER - OPPONENTS OF ABORTION
      880625 FEELING THERMOMETER - WHITES
      880626 FEELING THERMOMETER - JEWS
      880627 FEELING THERMOMETER - HOMOSEXUALS
      880628 FEELING THERMOMETER - CONGRESS
      880629 FEELING THERMOMETER - CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS


                             R'S VOTE - 1984

      880630 DID R VOTE IN 1984 ELECTION
      880631 WHO DID R VOTE FOR IN 1984 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION


              QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATES: BUSH/DUKAKIS

      880632 HOW WELL DOES "TOUGH ON CRIME AND CRIMINALS"
            DESCRIBE GEORGE BUSH
      880633 HOW WELL DOES "CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT"
            DESCRIBE GEORGE BUSH
      880634 HOW WELL DOES "TOUGH ON CRIME AND CRIMINALS"

            DESCRIBE MICHAEL DUKAKIS
      880635 HOW WELL DOES "CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT"
            DESCRIBE MICHAEL DUKAKIS


              PROBE INDICATORS FOR POST-ELECTION SECTION B

      880636 WAS QUESTION B1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880637 WAS QUESTION B1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880638 WAS QUESTION B1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880639 WAS QUESTION B1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880640 WAS QUESTION B1E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880641 WAS QUESTION B1F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880642 WAS QUESTION B1G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880643 WAS QUESTION B1H PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880644 WAS QUESTION B1J PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880645 WAS QUESTION B1K PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880646 WAS QUESTION B1M PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880647 WAS QUESTION B1N PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880648 WAS QUESTION B2A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880649 WAS QUESTION B2B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880650 WAS QUESTION B2C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880651 WAS QUESTION B2D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880652 WAS QUESTION B2E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880653 WAS QUESTION B2F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880654 WAS QUESTION B2G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880655 WAS QUESTION B2H PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880656 WAS QUESTION B2J PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880657 WAS QUESTION B2K PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880658 WAS QUESTION B2M PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880659 WAS QUESTION B2N PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880660 WAS QUESTION B2P PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880661 WAS QUESTION B2Q PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880662 WAS QUESTION B2R PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880663 WAS QUESTION B2S PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880664 WAS QUESTION B2T PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880665 WAS QUESTION B2U PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880666 WAS QUESTION B2V PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880667 WAS QUESTION B2W PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880668 WAS QUESTION B2X PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880669 WAS QUESTION B2Y PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880670 WAS QUESTION B2Z PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880671 WAS QUESTION B2AA PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880672 WAS QUESTION B2BB PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880673 WAS QUESTION B2CC PROBED BY INTERVIEWER


          R'S LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE CANDIDATE: DEMOCRATIC

      880674 IS THERE ANYTHING R LIKES ABOUT DEMOCRATIC
            CANDIDATE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
      880675 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
            - FIRST MENTION
      880676 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
            - SECOND MENTION
      880677 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
            - THIRD MENTION
      880678 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
            - FOURTH MENTION
      880679 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
            - FIFTH MENTION
      880680 IS THERE ANYTHING R DISLIKES ABOUT DEMOCRATIC
            CANDIDATE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
      880681 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC
            CANDIDATE - FIRST MENTION
      880682 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC
            CANDIDATE - SECOND MENTION
      880683 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC
            CANDIDATE - THIRD MENTION
      880684 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC
            CANDIDATE - FOURTH MENTION
      880685 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC
            CANDIDATE - FIFTH MENTION


          R'S LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE CANDIDATE: REPUBLICAN

      880686 IS THERE ANYTHING R LIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN
            CANDIDATE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
      880687 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE
            - FIRST MENTION
      880688 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE
            - SECOND MENTION
      880689 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE
            - THIRD MENTION
      880690 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE
            - FOURTH MENTION
      880691 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE
            - FIFTH MENTION
      880692 IS THERE ANYTHING R DISLIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN
            CANDIDATE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
      880693 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN
            CANDIDATE - FIRST MENTION
      880694 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN
            CANDIDATE - SECOND MENTION
      880695 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN
            CANDIDATE - THIRD MENTION
      880696 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN
            CANDIDATE - FOURTH MENTION
      880697 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN
            CANDIDATE - FIFTH MENTION


                    IMPORTANT ISSUES - HOUSE CAMPAIGN

      880698 IMPORTANT ISSUES TO R IN CAMPAIGN FOR HOUSE OF
            REPRESENTATIVES - FIRST MENTION
      880699 IMPORTANT ISSUES TO R IN CAMPAIGN FOR HOUSE OF
            REPRESENTATIVES - SECOND MENTION
      880700 IMPORTANT ISSUES TO R IN CAMPAIGN FOR HOUSE OF
            REPRESENTATIVES - THIRD MENTION

      880701 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: HAS R MENTIONED ISSUES

      880702 ISSUE MOST IMPORTANT TO R IN CAMPAIGN

      880703 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: TYPE OF RACE, ONE OR TWO
            CANDIDATES

      880704 DID R PREFER ONE OF THE CANDIDATES BECAUSE OF THIS
            ISSUE
      880705 CANDIDATE R PREFERRED
      880706 PARTY OF CANDIDATE NAMED

      880707 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: TYPE OF RACE, ONE OR TWO
            CANDIDATES


              R'S KNOWLEDGE OF INCUMBENTS - HOUSE CAMPAIGN

      880708 TWO HOUSE CANDIDATES RUNNING: WAS EITHER CANDIDATE
            ALREADY IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
      880709 TWO HOUSE CANDIDATES RUNNING: WHICH CANDIDATE WAS
            ALREADY IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
      880710 TWO HOUSE CANDIDATES RUNNING: PARTY OF CANDIDATE
            ALREADY IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
      880711 ONE HOUSE CANDIDATE RUNNING: WAS CANDIDATE ALREADY
            IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
      880712 ONE HOUSE CANDIDATE RUNNING: CANDIDATE NUMBER CODE
      880713 ONE HOUSE CANDIDATE RUNNING: PARTY OF CANDIDATE

      880714 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: DISTRICTS IN WHICH
            HOUSE INCUMBENT RAN


                    CONTACT WITH U.S. HOUSE INCUMBENT

      880715 DID R HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH INCUMBENT
      880716 DID R MEET INCUMBENT PERSONALLY
      880717 DID R ATTEND MEETING/GATHERING WHERE INCUMBENT SPOKE
      880718 DID R TALK WITH INCUMBENT'S STAFF/OFFICE
      880719 DID R RECEIVE SOMETHING IN MAIL FROM INCUMBENT
      880720 DID R READ ABOUT INCUMBENT IN NEWSPAPER/MAGAZINE
      880721 DID R HEAR INCUMBENT ON RADIO
      880722 DID R SEE INCUMBENT ON TELEVISION
      880723 R HAD CONTACT WITH INCUMBENT IN OTHER WAYS
      880724 DOES R KNOW ANYONE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH INCUMBENT

      880725 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: DISTRICT IN WHICH HOUSE
            INCUMBENT HAD OPPOSITION


           CONTACT WITH U.S. HOUSE CANDIDATE - DISTRICTS WITH
                            RUNNING INCUMBENT
      880726 DID R HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE
      880727 DID R MEET CANDIDATE PERSONALLY
      880728 DID R ATTEND MEETING/GATHERING WHERE CANDIDATE SPOKE

      880729 DID R TALK WITH CANDIDATE'S STAFF/OFFICE
      880730 DID R RECEIVE SOMETHING IN MAIL FROM CANDIDATE
      880731 DID R READ ABOUT CANDIDATE IN NEWSPAPER/MAGAZINE
      880732 DID R HEAR CANDIDATE ON RADIO
      880733 DID R SEE CANDIDATE ON TELEVISION
      880734 R HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE IN OTHER WAYS
      880735 DOES R KNOW ANYONE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE


           CONTACT WITH U.S. HOUSE INCUMBENT - DISTRICTS WITH
                          NO INCUMBENT RUNNING

      880736 DID R HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE
      880737 DID R MEET CANDIDATE PERSONALLY
      880738 DID R ATTEND MEETING/GATHERING WHERE CANDIDATE SPOKE
      880739 DID R TALK WITH CANDIDATE'S STAFF/OFFICE
      880740 DID R RECEIVE SOMETHING IN MAIL FROM CANDIDATE
      880741 DID R READ ABOUT CANDIDATE IN NEWSPAPER/MAGAZINE
      880742 DID R HEAR CANDIDATE ON RADIO
      880743 DID R SEE CANDIDATE ON TELEVISION
      880744 R HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE IN OTHER WAYS
      880745 DOES R KNOW ANYONE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE
      880746 DID R HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE
      880747 DID R MEET CANDIDATE PERSONALLY
      880748 DID R ATTEND MEETING/GATHERING WHERE CANDIDATE SPOKE
      880749 DID R TALK WITH CANDIDATE'S STAFF/OFFICE
      880750 DID R RECEIVE SOMETHING IN MAIL FROM CANDIDATE
      880751 DID R READ ABOUT CANDIDATE IN NEWSPAPER/MAGAZINE
      880752 DID R HEAR CANDIDATE ON RADIO
      880753 DID R SEE CANDIDATE ON TELEVISION
      880754 R HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE IN OTHER WAYS
      880755 DOES R KNOW ANYONE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE


                         VOTING SECTION: VOTERS

      880756 DID R VOTE IN 1988 ELECTION
      880757 WAS R REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THIS ELECTION
      880758 IS R REGISTERED TO VOTE AT CURRENT ADDRESS
      880759 IS R REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THIS STATE
      880760 IN WHAT STATE IS R REGISTERED

      880761 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS R REGISTERED TO VOTE IN
            STATE OF INTERVIEW

      880762 DID R VOTE FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 1988
            ELECTION
      880763 WHO DID R VOTE FOR IN 1988 ELECTION
      880764 WAS R'S PREFERENCE STRONG FOR THIS PRESIDENTIAL
            CANDIDATE
      880765 WHEN DID R REACH VOTE DECISION
      880766 DID R VOTE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATE
      880767 FOR WHICH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATE DID R
            VOTE
      880768 R'S VOTE FOR HOUSE CANDIDATE - PARTY
      880769 WAS R'S PREFERENCE STRONG FOR HOUSE CANDIDATE

      880770 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: WAS THERE A SENATE RACE IN
            R'S STATE

      880771 DID R VOTE FOR A SENATE CANDIDATE
      880772 FOR WHICH SENATE CANDIDATE DID R VOTE
      880773 R'S VOTE FOR SENATE CANDIDATE - PARTY


                       VOTING SECTION: NON-VOTERS

      880774 DID R PREFER ONE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT
      880775 WHOM DID R PREFER FOR PRESIDENT
      880776 HOW STRONG WAS R'S PREFERENCE FOR PRESIDENTIAL
            CANDIDATE
      880777 DID R PREFER A CANDIDATE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
      880778 WHICH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATE DID R
            PREFER
      880779 PARTY OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATE
            PREFERRED BY R


             NON-CAMPAIGN CONTACTS WITH U.S. HOUSE INCUMBENT

      880780 DID R OR FAMILY MEMBER EVER CONTACT U. S. HOUSE
            INCUMBENT/OFFICE
      880781 REASON FOR CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT - TO EXPRESS
            OPINION
      880782 REASON FOR CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT - TO SEEK
            INFORMATION
      880783 REASON FOR CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT - TO SEEK
            HELP WITH PROBLEM
      880784 DID R GET RESPONSE FROM HOUSE INCUMBENT/OFFICE
      880785 HOW SATISFIED WAS R WITH RESPONSE FROM INCUMBENT
      880786 DOES R KNOW ANYONE ELSE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH U.S.
            HOUSE INCUMBENT
      880787 DID PERSON/GROUP GET RESPONSE FROM HOUSE INCUMBENT/
            OFFICE
      880788 HOW SATISFIED WAS PERSON/GROUP WITH RESPONSE FROM
            INCUMBENT


                 R'S ASSESSMENT OF U.S. HOUSE INCUMBENT

      880789 R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF INCUMBENT'S HANDLING OF JOB
      880790 STRENGTH OF R'S APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL OF INCUMBENT'S
            HANDLING OF JOB
      880791 HOW HELPFUL WOULD HOUSE INCUMBENT BE WITH ANOTHER
            PROBLEM
      880792 ANYTHING SPECIAL DONE BY HOUSE INCUMBENT FOR
            DISTRICT/PEOPLE
      880793 HOW WELL DOES U.S. REPRESENTATIVE KEEP IN TOUCH WITH
            DISTRICT
      880794 DOES R AGREE/DISAGREE WITH WAY REPRESENTATIVE VOTED
      880795 DOES R REMEMBER A BILL REPRESENTATIVE VOTED ON
      880796 DID R AGREE/DISAGREE WITH WAY REPRESENTATIVE VOTED
      880797 DOES R SEE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PARTIES


                            PARTY DIFFERENCES

      880798 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE -
            FIRST MENTION
      880799 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - FIRST MENTION
      880800 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE -
            SECOND MENTION
      880801 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - SECOND MENTION
      880802 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE -
            THIRD MENTION
      880803 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - THIRD MENTION
      880804 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE -
            FOURTH MENTION
      880805 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - FOURTH MENTION
      880806 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE -
            FIFTH MENTION
      880807 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - FIFTH MENTION
      880808 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE -
            SIXTH MENTION
      880809 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - SIXTH MENTION
      880810 DOES R THINK ONE PARTY MORE CONSERVATIVE AT NATIONAL
            LEVEL
      880811 WHICH PARTY DOES R THINK IS MORE CONSERVATIVE


                       IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEMS

      880812 HOW OFTEN DOES R FOLLOW GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC AFFAIRS
      880813 WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEM -
            1ST MENTION
      880814 WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEM -
            2ND MENTION
      880815 WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEM -
            3RD MENTION

      880816 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: HAS R MENTIONED ANY PROBLEMS

      880817 WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEM
      880818 HOW GOOD A JOB IS GOVERNMENT DOING WITH THIS PROBLEM
      880819 WHICH PARTY WOULD GET GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH THIS
            PROBLEM


                PARTY CONTACTS WITH R DURING THE CAMPAIGN

      880820 DID A POLITICAL PARTY WORKER CONTACT R DURING
            CAMPAIGN
      880821 WHICH PARTY(S) CONTACTED R DURING CAMPAIGN
      880822 DID ANYONE ELSE CONTACT R DURING CAMPAIGN
      880823 WHICH CANDIDATE DID THE CONTACT ASK R TO SUPPORT -
            1ST MENTION
      880824 WHICH CANDIDATE DID THE CONTACT ASK R TO SUPPORT -
            2ND MENTION

                        R'S POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

      880825 DID R TRY TO INFLUENCE OTHER'S VOTE CHOICES
      880826 DID R WEAR A BUTTON, PUT A STICKER ON THE CAR, OR
            PUT UP A SIGN
      880827 DID R ATTEND ANY POLITICAL MEETINGS OR RALLIES
      880828 DID R WORK FOR PARTY OR CANDIDATE


                       R'S POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
      880829 DID R USE $1 POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION OPTION ON
            FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN
      880830 DID R CONTRIBUTE MONEY TO AN INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATE
      880831 R GAVE MONEY TO CANDIDATE FROM WHICH PARTY
      880832 DID R GIVE MONEY TO SPECIFIC POLITICAL PARTY
      880833 WHICH PARTY DID R GIVE MONEY TO
      880834 DID R GIVE MONEY TO ANY OTHER GROUP SUPPORTING/
            OPPOSING CANDIDATES
      880835 WAS R CONTACTED ABOUT REGISTERING OR VOTING
      880836 DID R RECEIVE REQUESTS THROUGH MAIL FOR POLITICAL
            CONTRIBUTIONS
      880837 HOW MANY MAIL REQUESTS DID R GET
      880838 DID R CONTRIBUTE MONEY BECAUSE OF MAIL REQUESTS
      880839 DID R RECEIVE PHONE REQUESTS FOR POLITICAL
            CONTRIBUTIONS
      880840 HOW MANY PHONE REQUESTS DID R RECEIVE
      880841 DID R GIVE MONEY BECAUSE OF PHONE REQUESTS
      880842 DID R RECEIVE PERSONAL REQUEST FOR POL. CONTRIBUTION
      880843 HOW MANY PERSONAL REQUESTS DID R RECEIVE
      880844 DID R GIVE MONEY BECAUSE OF PERSONAL REQUESTS


             R'S OPINIONS ON VARIOUS SOCIAL/POLITICAL ISSUES

                     CIVIL RIGHTS/POSITION OF BLACKS

      880845 DOES R THINK CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS ARE PUSHING TOO
            FAST/SLOW
      880846 HOW MUCH CHANGE DOES R THINK THERE HAS BEEN IN THE
            POSITION OF BLACKS

                           POWER OF GOVERNMENT

      880847 DOES R HAVE AN OPINION ON THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL
            GOVERNMENT
      880848 DOES R FEEL THE GOVERNMENT IS/IS NOT TOO POWERFUL
      880849 DOES R THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD/SHOULD NOT
            BECOME MORE POWERFUL
      880850 SUMMARY: R'S OPINION ON THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT
      880851 DOES R THINK THE DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS FAVOR A
            POWERFUL GOVERNMENT IN WASHINGTON

           LAWS TO PROTECT HOMOSEXUALS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

      880852 DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE LAWS TO PROTECT HOMOSEXUALS
            AGAINST JOB DISCRIMINATION
      880853 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE SUCH LAWS

                              DEATH PENALTY

      880854 DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY
      880855 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY

                      AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR BLACKS

      880856 IS R FOR/AGAINST PREFERENTIAL HIRING/PROMOTION OF
            BLACKS
      880857 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE PREFERENTIAL
            TREATMENT

                 CONCERN ABOUT CONVENTIONAL/NUCLEAR WAR
      880858 HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT THE U.S. GETTING INTO A
            CONVENTIONAL WAR
      880859 HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT THE U.S. GETTING INTO A
            NUCLEAR WAR

                              SOUTH AFRICA

      880860 DOES R HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT U.S. POLICY TOWARD
            SOUTH AFRICA
      880861 DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE U.S. PRESSURE ON SOUTH AFRICA
      880862 HOW STRONGLY DOES R HOLD THIS OPINION
      880863 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON POLICY TOWARD SOUTH AFRICA

               GOVT ENSURANCE OF FAIR TREATMENT TO BLACKS

      880864 DOES R HAVE AN OPINION ON THE GOVERNMENT ENSURING
            THAT BLACKS RECEIVE FAIR TREATMENT IN JOBS
      880865 DOES R FEEL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD/SHOULD
            NOT ENSURE FAIR TREATMENT TO BLACKS

                              SCHOOL PRAYER

      880866 R'S OPINION ON SCHOOL PRAYER
      880867 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR THEIR OPINION
      880868 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE TOWARD SCHOOL PRAYER

                          BLACK STUDENT QUOTAS

      880869 R IS FOR/AGAINST QUOTAS TO ADMIT BLACK STUDENTS
      880870 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE QUOTAS


                    RECOGNITION OF POLITICAL FIGURES

      880871 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE TED KENNEDY HOLDS
      880872 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE GEORGE SCHULTZ HOLDS
      880873 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST HOLDS
      880874 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE MIKHAIL GORBACHEV HOLDS
      880875 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE MARGARET THATCHER HOLDS
      880876 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE YASSER ARAFAT HOLDS
      880877 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE JIM WRIGHT HOLDS


            R'S KNOWLEDGE OF PARTY REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS

      880878 DOES R KNOW WHICH PARTY HAD THE MOST MEMBERS IN THE
            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE THE ELECTION
      880879 DOES R KNOW WHICH PARTY HAD THE MOST MEMBERS IN THE
            SENATE BEFORE THE ELECTION


                       R'S ASSESSMENT OF CONGRESS

      880880 DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF THE WAY CONGRESS HAS BEEN
            HANDLING ITS JOB
      880881 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE


           PROBE INDICATORS FOR POST-ELECTION SECTIONS H AND J

      880882 WAS QUESTION H1 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880883 WAS QUESTION H2 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880884 WAS QUESTION H3A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880885 WAS QUESTION H4 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880886 WAS QUESTION H5 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880887 WAS QUESTION H6 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880888 WAS QUESTION H9A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880889 WAS QUESTION H10 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880890 WAS QUESTION J2 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880891 WAS QUESTION J3A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880892 WAS QUESTION J3B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880893 WAS QUESTION J3C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880894 WAS QUESTION J3D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880895 WAS QUESTION J3E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880896 WAS QUESTION J3F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880897 WAS QUESTION J3G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER

      880898 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: FORM A OR B


            VARIABLES 899-923: REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE QUESTIONS
                 R'S EVALUATION OF THE PAST EIGHT YEARS
                     (SEE ALSO VARIABLES 881002-881043)

                   EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

      880899 HAVE EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT INCREASED/
            DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME
      880900 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF INCREASING PROGRAMS TO
            PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
      880901 DOES R THINK THESE PROGRAMS SHOULD HAVE INCREASED/
            DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME
      880902 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF DECREASING THESE PROGRAMS
      880903 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE
            ENVIRONMENT

                    LEVEL OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

      880904 HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS INCREASED/DECREASED/
            STAYED ABOUT THE SAME
      880905 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF INCREASE IN SOCIAL
            SECURITY BENEFITS
      880906 DOES R THINK BENEFITS SHOULD HAVE INCREASED/
            DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME
      880907 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF DECREASE IN BENEFITS
      880908 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON LEVEL OF SOCIAL SECURITY
            BENEFITS

                        LEVEL OF DEFENSE SPENDING

      880909 HAS DEFENSE SPENDING INCREASED/DECREASED/STAYED
            ABOUT THE SAME
      880910 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF INCREASE IN DEFENSE
            SPENDING
      880911 DOES R THINK DEFENSE SPENDING SHOULD HAVE
            INCREASED/DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME
      880912 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF DECREASED DEFENSE
            SPENDING
      880913 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON LEVEL OF DEFENSE SPENDING

                      LEVEL OF SPENDING ON POVERTY

      880914 HAS SPENDING ON ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR INCREASED/
            DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME
      880915 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF INCREASED ASSISTANCE FOR
            THE POOR
      880916 DOES R THINK ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR SHOULD HAVE
            INCREASED/DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME
      880917 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF DECREASED ASSISTANCE TO
            THE POOR
      880918 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON LEVEL OF SPENDING ON
            POVERTY

                     LEVEL OF SPENDING ON EDUCATION

      880919 HAS SPENDING ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS INCREASED/DECREASED/
            STAYED ABOUT THE SAME
      880920 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF INCREASED SPENDING FOR
            SCHOOLS
      880921 DOES R THINK SPENDING FOR SCHOOLS SHOULD HAVE
            INCREASED/DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME
      880922 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF DECREASED SPENDING FOR
            SCHOOLS
      880923 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON LEVEL OF SPENDING ON
            EDUCATION


                 VARS 924-974: QUESTION ORDER EXPERIMENT

                     EQUAL RIGHTS - R AGREE/DISAGREE

      880924 SOCIETY SHOULD ENSURE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED
      880925 WE HAVE GONE TOO FAR IN PUSHING EQUAL RIGHTS
      880926 WE SHOULD WORRY LESS ABOUT EQUALITY
      880927 IT IS NOT A PROBLEM IF PEOPLE HAVE UNEQUAL CHANCES
      880928 WE WOULD HAVE FEWER PROBLEMS IF PEOPLE WERE TREATED
            MORE EQUALLY
      880929 A PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY IS THAT WE DON'T GIVE
            EVERYONE AN EQUAL CHANCE

                   R'S CHOICE OF GOALS FOR THE NATION

      880930 R'S CHOICE OF MOST DESIRABLE GOAL FOR THE NATION
      880931 R'S CHOICE OF SECOND GOAL FOR OUR NATION

                       IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION TO R

      880932 IS RELIGION AN IMPORTANT PART OF R'S LIFE
      880933 HOW MUCH GUIDANCE DOES RELIGION PROVIDE TO R'S LIFE
      880934 R'S VIEW ABOUT THE BIBLE
      880935 HOW OFTEN DOES R PRAY

               GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS - R AGREE/DISAGREE

      880936 PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT AN ELECTION OUTCOME
            SHOULDN'T VOTE
      880937 PEOPLE LIKE ME DON'T HAVE ANY SAY ABOUT GOVERNMENT
      880938 PUBLIC OFFICIALS DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE LIKE ME
            THINK
      880939 POLITICS ARE SO COMPLICATED A PERSON LIKE ME CAN'T
            UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON
      880940 I HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES FACING
            OUR COUNTRY
      880941 I AM WELL-QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN POLITICS
      880942 I COULD DO AS GOOD A JOB IN PUBLIC OFFICE AS
            MOST OTHERS
      880943 I AM BETTER INFORMED ABOUT POLITICS THAN MOST
      880944 TAXES SHOULD BE CUT EVEN IF IT PUTS OFF IMPORTANT
            THINGS TO BE DONE

                  WHAT R MEANS BY LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE

      880945 WHAT R MEANS BY LIBERAL - FIRST MENTION
      880946 WHAT R MEANS BY LIBERAL - SECOND MENTION
      880947 WHAT R MEANS BY LIBERAL - THIRD MENTION
      880948 WHAT R MEANS BY CONSERVATIVE - FIRST MENTION
      880949 WHAT R MEANS BY CONSERVATIVE - SECOND MENTION
      880950 WHAT R MEANS BY CONSERVATIVE - THIRD MENTION

                   R'S OPINIONS ON MORALITY IN SOCIETY

      880951 WE SHOULD ADJUST MORAL BEHAVIOR TO CHANGES IN THE
            WORLD
      880952 WE SHOULD BE MORE TOLERANT OF PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT
            MORAL STANDARDS
      880953 THERE WOULD BE FEWER PROBLEMS IF MORE EMPHASIS WAS
            PLACED ON TRADITIONAL FAMILY TIES
      880954 NEWER LIFESTYLES ARE CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETAL
            BREAKDOWN

                R'S FEELINGS ABOUT GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL

      880955 HOW MUCH OF THE TIME DOES R THINK HE/SHE CAN
            TRUST GOVERNMENT
      880956 HOW MUCH DOES THE GOVERNMENT WASTE OUR TAX DOLLARS
      880957 IS GOVERNMENT RUN BY A FEW BIG INTERESTS OR FOR THE
            BENEFIT OF ALL
      880958 HOW MANY PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT DOES R THINK ARE
            CROOKED
      880959 HOW MUCH DOES R FEEL ELECTIONS MAKE GOVERNMENT
            LISTEN TO PEOPLE
      880960 HOW MUCH ATTENTION DOES R FEEL GOVERNMENT PAYS TO
            WHAT PEOPLE THINK

             R'S OPINIONS ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR BLACKS

      880961 BLACKS SHOULD OVERCOME PREJUDICE WITHOUT ANY
            SPECIAL FAVORS
      880962 BLACKS HAVE GOTTEN LESS THAN THEY DESERVE OVER THE
            PAST FEW YEARS
      880963 IF BLACKS WOULD TRY HARDER THEY COULD BE JUST AS
            WELL OFF AS WHITES
      880964 GENERATIONS OF SLAVERY AND DISCRIMINATION MAKE IT
            DIFFICULT FOR BLACKS TO MOVE UP
      880965 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IS IMPORTANT BUT NOT THE
            GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO GUARANTEE

                    R'S OPINION ON A STRONG MILITARY

      880966 IS A STRONG MILITARY OR THE BARGAINING TABLE THE
            BETTER WAY TO KEEP PEACE
      880967 HOW IMPORTANT IS A STRONG MILITARY FORCE FOR
            DEALING WITH OUR ENEMIES

                  R'S FEELINGS ABOUT BEING AN AMERICAN

      880968 HOW GOOD DOES R FEEL SEEING THE AMERICAN FLAG FLY
      880969 HOW STRONG IS R'S LOVE FOR HIS/HER COUNTRY
      880970 HOW EMOTIONAL DOES R FEEL HEARING THE NATIONAL
            ANTHEM
      880971 HOW PROUD IS R TO BE AN AMERICAN

            R'S OPINION ON U.S. WORLD POWER/COMMUNIST THREAT

      880972 THE U.S. SHOULD REMAIN THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL
            NATION EVEN IF IT MEANS RISKING WAR
      880973 ANY COMMUNIST COUNTRY IS A THREAT TO THE U.S.
      880974 THE U.S. SHOULD DO EVERYTHING IT CAN TO PREVENT THE
            SPREAD OF COMMUNISM


         PROBE INDICATORS FOR QUESTION ORDER EXPERIMENT - FORM A

      880975 WAS QUESTION M1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880976 WAS QUESTION M1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880977 WAS QUESTION M1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880978 WAS QUESTION M1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880979 WAS QUESTION M1E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880980 WAS QUESTION M1F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880981 WAS QUESTION M1G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880982 WAS QUESTION M1H PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880983 WAS QUESTION M1J PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880984 WAS QUESTION M4A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880985 WAS QUESTION M4B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880986 WAS QUESTION M4C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880987 WAS QUESTION M4D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880988 WAS QUESTION M11A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880989 WAS QUESTION M11B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880990 WAS QUESTION M11C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880991 WAS QUESTION M11D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880992 WAS QUESTION M11E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880993 WAS QUESTION M12 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880994 WAS QUESTION M13 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880995 WAS QUESTION M14A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880996 WAS QUESTION M14B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880997 WAS QUESTION M14C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880998 WAS QUESTION M14D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      880999 WAS QUESTION M15A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881000 WAS QUESTION M15B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881001 WAS QUESTION M15C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER


           VARIABLES 1002-1043: REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE QUESTIONS
                 R'S EVALUATION OF THE PAST EIGHT YEARS
                      (ALSO VARIABLES 88899-88923)

             ANYTHING R LIKES ABOUT WHAT REAGAN HAS DONE AS
                                PRESIDENT

      881002 IS THERE ANYTHING R LIKES ABOUT WHAT REAGAN HAS
      881002 DONE AS PRESIDENT
      881003 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FIRST MENTION
      881004 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT REAGAN - SECOND MENTION
      881005 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT REAGAN - THIRD MENTION
      881006 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FOURTH MENTION
      881007 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FIFTH MENTION

            ANYTHING R DISLIKES ABOUT WHAT REAGAN HAS DONE AS
                                PRESIDENT

      881008 IS THERE ANYTHING R DISLIKES ABOUT WHAT REAGAN HAS
            DONE AS PRESIDENT
      881009 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FIRST MENTION
      881010 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REAGAN - SECOND MENTION
      881011 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REAGAN - THIRD REAGAN
      881012 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FOURTH MENTION
      881013 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FIFTH MENTION

                       QUALITIES DESCRIBING REAGAN

      881014 HOW WELL DOES "INTELLIGENT" DESCRIBE REAGAN
      881015 HOW WELL DOES "COMPASSIONATE" DESCRIBE REAGAN
      881016 HOW WELL DOES "MORAL" DESCRIBE REAGAN
      881017 HOW WELL DOES "INSPIRING" DESCRIBE REAGAN
      881018 HOW WELL DOES "PROVIDES STRONG LEADERSHIP" DESCRIBE
            REAGAN
      881019 HOW WELL DOES "DECENT" DESCRIBE REAGAN
      881020 HOW WELL DOES "REALLY CARES ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU"
            DESCRIBE REAGAN
      881021 HOW WELL DOES "KNOWLEDGEABLE" DESCRIBE REAGAN
      881022 HOW WELL DOES "HONEST" DESCRIBE REAGAN

                        R'S FEELINGS ABOUT REAGAN

      881023 HAS REAGAN MADE R FEEL ANGRY
      881024 HAS REAGAN MADE R FEEL HOPEFUL
      881025 HAS REAGAN MADE R FEEL AFRAID OF HIM
      881026 HAS REAGAN MADE R FEEL PROUD

                  UNEMPLOYMENT BETTER/WORSE SINCE 1980

      881027 DOES R THINK UNEMPLOYMENT HAS GOTTEN BETTER/WORSE/
            STAYED ABOUT THE SAME SINCE 1980
      881028 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS UNEMPLOYMENT

                    INFLATION BETTER/WORSE SINCE 1980

      881029 DOES R THINK THAT INFLATION HAS GOTTEN BETTER/
            WORSE/STAYED THE SAME SINCE 1980
      881030 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS INFLATION

                     ECONOMY BETTER/WORSE SINCE 1980

      881031 DOES R THINK REAGAN'S ECONOMIC POLICIES HAVE MADE
            THE ECONOMY BETTER/WORSE/NOT MADE MUCH DIFFERENCE
      881032 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE HAVE REAGAN'S POLICIES MADE
            THE ECONOMY
      881033 HAS R BEEN HELPED OR HURT BY REAGAN'S ECONOMIC
            PROGRAM

               U.S. MORE/LESS SECURE FROM FOREIGN ENEMIES

      881034 DOES R THINK REAGAN'S POLICIES HAVE MADE THE U.S.
            MORE/LESS SECURE FROM FOREIGN ENEMIES
      881035 HOW MUCH MORE/LESS SECURE IS U.S.

                BUDGET DEFICIT SMALLER/LARGER SINCE 1980

      881036 DOES R THINK THE BUDGET DEFICIT IS SMALLER/LARGER/
            STAYED ABOUT THE SAME SINCE 1980
      881037 HOW MUCH SMALLER/LARGER IS THE BUDGET DEFICIT

                 GOVERNMENT MORE/LESS HONEST SINCE 1980

      881038 DOES R THINK PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT ARE MORE/LESS
            HONEST THAN IN 1980
      881039 HOW MUCH MORE/LESS HONEST ARE PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT

           EFFORTS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION INCREASED/DECREASED

      881040 DOES R THINK EFFORTS TO PROTECT BLACKS FROM
            DISCRIMINATION HAVE INCREASED/DECREASED/STAYED THE
            SAME SINCE 1980
      881041 DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF THIS INCREASE/DECREASE

          OVERALL, R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF REAGAN'S PRESIDENCY

      881042 OVERALL, DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF REAGAN'S
            HANDLING OF THE PRESIDENCY
      881043 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE


               PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION SECTION P

      881044 WAS QUESTION P5 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881045 WAS QUESTION P6 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881046 WAS QUESTION P7 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881047 WAS QUESTION P8 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881048 WAS QUESTION P9 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881049 WAS QUESTION P10 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881050 WAS QUESTION P11 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881051 WAS QUESTION P12 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881052 WAS QUESTION P13 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER


          PROBE INDICATORS FOR POST-ELECTION SECTIONS N, P & Q

      881053 WAS QUESTION N4A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881054 WAS QUESTION N4B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881055 WAS QUESTION N4C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881056 WAS QUESTION N4D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881057 WAS QUESTION N5 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881058 WAS QUESTION N6 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881059 WAS QUESTION N7 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881060 WAS QUESTION N8 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881061 WAS QUESTION N9 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881062 WAS QUESTION N10 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881063 WAS QUESTION N11 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881064 WAS QUESTION N12 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881065 WAS QUESTION N13 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881066 WAS QUESTION P1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881067 WAS QUESTION P1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881068 WAS QUESTION P1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881069 WAS QUESTION P1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881070 WAS QUESTION P1E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881071 WAS QUESTION Q1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881072 WAS QUESTION Q1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881073 WAS QUESTION Q1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881074 WAS QUESTION Q1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881075 WAS QUESTION Q1E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881076 WAS QUESTION Q1F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881077 WAS QUESTION Q4A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881078 WAS QUESTION Q4B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881079 WAS QUESTION Q4C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881080 WAS QUESTION Q4D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881081 WAS QUESTION Q4E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881082 WAS QUESTION Q4F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881083 WAS QUESTION Q11A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881084 WAS QUESTION Q11B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881085 WAS QUESTION Q11C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881086 WAS QUESTION Q11D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881087 WAS QUESTION Q14A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881088 WAS QUESTION Q14B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881089 WAS QUESTION Q14C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881090 WAS QUESTION Q14D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881091 WAS QUESTION Q15A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881092 WAS QUESTION Q15B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881093 WAS QUESTION Q15C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881094 WAS QUESTION Q15D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881095 WAS QUESTION Q15E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER
      881096 WAS QUESTION Q15F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER


                R'S IDENTIFICATION WITH GROUPS IN SOCIETY

      881097 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO POOR PEOPLE
      881098 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO LIBERALS
      881099 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO THE ELDERLY
      881100 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO BLACKS
      881101 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO LABOR UNIONS
      881102 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO FEMINISTS
      881103 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS
      881104 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO BUSINESS PEOPLE
      881105 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO YOUNG PEOPLE
      881106 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO CONSERVATIVES
      881107 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO WOMEN
      881108 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO WORKING PEOPLE
      881109 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO WHITES
      881110 DOES F FEEL CLOSE TO EVANGELICAL GROUPS ACTIVE IN
            POLITICS
      881111 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE

      881112 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: R MENTIONED MORE THAN ONE
            GROUP

      881113 TO WHICH GROUP DOES R FEEL CLOSEST
      881114 DOES R BELONG TO ORGANIZATIONS OF CLOSEST GROUP


                   PARTY IDENTIFICATION OF R'S PARENTS

      881115 WAS R'S FATHER DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN/INDEPENDENT
      881116 WAS R'S MOTHER DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN/INDEPENDENT


                             VOTE VALIDATION

      881117 ELECTION OFFICE NUMBER
      881118 DOES R HAVE A REGISTRATION RECORD IN THIS OFFICE
      881119 WAS THE CROSS-REFERENCE FILE CHECKED
      881120 WHERE WAS THE REGISTRATION RECORD FOUND
      881121 MONTH OF PURGE/APPLICATION
      881122 DAY OF PURGE/APPLICATION
      881123 YEAR OF PURGE/APPLICATION

      881124 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: PURGE/APPLICATION DATE

      881125 DOES R'S NAME ON COVERSHEET LABEL MATCH THE NAME ON
            THE REGISTRATION RECORD
      881126 MONTH OF BIRTH ON REGISTRATION RECORD
      881127 YEAR OF BIRTH ON REGISTRATION RECORD
      881128 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SELF-REPORTED BIRTHDATE AND
            BIRTHDATE ON REGISTRATION RECORD
      881129 DOES R'S ADDRESS ON COVERSHEET LABEL MATCH THE ADDRESS
            ON THE REGISTRATION RECORD
      881130 R'S PRECINCT/ELECTION DISTRICT NUMBER/DESIGNATION
      881131 KINDS OF REGISTRATION RECORDS KEPT BY ELECTION OFFICE
      881132 REGISTRATION RECORDS NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR CHECKING

      881133 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: VOTE INFORMATION ON
            REGISTRATION RECORDS

      881134 DOES THE REGISTRATION RECORD INDICATE THAT R VOTED
      881135 DO VOTE RECORDS INDICATE R VOTED IN NOVEMBER 1988
            GENERAL ELECTION
      881136 WHICH VOTE RECORD INDICATED R VOTED
      881137 WERE ALL VOTE RECORDS ACCESSIBLE FOR CHECKING
      881138 WHICH VOTE RECORDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHECKING
      881139 MONTH R LAST VOTED
      881140 DAY R LAST VOTED
      881141 YEAR R LAST VOTED
      881142 R'S SELF-REPORTED VOTE
      881143 WAS CHECK MADE FOR R'S REGISTRATION VOTING RECORD
      881144 SUMMARY: REGISTRATION RECORD FOUND
      881145 AVAILABILITY OF VOTING RECORDS
      881146 RECORD OF R VOTING - EXCLUDING NO SELF-REPORT
      881147 SUMMARY: ASSIGNMENT OF R TO VOTE/NON-VOTE
      881148 RECORD OF R VOTING - INCLUDING NO SELF-REPORT


                     ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SURVEY

      881149 MONTH OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION INTERVIEW
      881150 DAY OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION INTERVIEW
      881151 LENGTH OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION INTERVIEW
      881152 DISPOSITION OF REGISTRATION RECORDS WHEN OFFICE
            NOTIFIED PEOPLE MOVED OUT OF JURISDICTION
      881153 DISPOSITION OF REGISTRATION RECORDS WHEN OFFICE
            NOTIFIED OF DEATH OR FELONY CONVICTION
      881154 ARE REGISTRATION RECORDS DELETED FROM ACTIVE FILES
            BECAUSE OF NON-VOTING
      881155 ARE PEOPLE FIRST NOTIFIED THAT THEY WILL BE
            DELETED/PURGED
      881156 PROCEDURE FOR PURGING OF RECORDS - FIRST MENTION
      881157 PROCEDURE FOR PURGING OF RECORDS - SECOND MENTION
      881158 PROCEDURE FOR PURGING OF RECORDS - THIRD MENTION
      881159 CAN PEOPLE STAY REGISTERED OR ARE THEY REQUIRED TO
            RE-REGISTER
      881160 TIME INTERVAL FOR DELETION OF RECORDS/NOTICES OF
            INTENT
      881161 DISPOSITION OF RECORDS DELETED BECAUSE OF NON-VOTING
      881162 FOR HOW LONG ARE DELETED RECORDS FILED
      881163 ARE THESE RECORDS CALLED PURGED/INACTIVE/OTHER
      881164 ARE THESE RECORDS ACCESSIBLE
      881165 ARE THERE STANDARD PROCEDURES TO CONFIRM CURRENT
            ADDRESS OF REGISTERED VOTERS
      881166 IS THIS RESIDENCY CHECK PERFORMED FOR ALL OR JUST
            NON-VOTERS
      881167 NON-VOTERS:  HOW LONG MUST IT HAVE BEEN SINCE LAST
            VOTED

      881168 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT:  NON-VOTERS/ALL OTHERS

      881169 HOW OFTEN IS RESIDENCY CHECK PERFORMED FOR EVERYONE
      881170 DISPOSITION OF RECORD WHEN CHECK DETERMINES CHANGE OF
            ADDRESS
      881171 CAN INACTIVE REGISTRANT VOTE BY SHOWING NEW PROOF OF
            ADDRESS ON ELECTION DAY
      881172 DOES INACTIVE REGISTRANT GO TO VOTING PLACE FOR
            PREVIOUS OR CURRENT ADDRESS IF THEY WANT TO VOTE ON
            ELECTION DAY
      881173 DOES OFFICE HAVE A MASTER FILE FOR ALL REGISTRATION
            RECORDS
      881174 IS MASTER FILE ON A COMPUTER
      881175 IS PRECINCT NUMBER ON THE RECORD OF EACH PERSON
      881176 IS EXACT ADDRESS OR PRECINCT NECESSARY TO LOCATE A
            RECORD
      881177 WITH MASTER FILE, CAN REGISTRANT BE IDENTIFIED FROM AN
            ADDRESS
      881178 DOES MASTER FILE INDICATE WHETHER A PERSON VOTED IN A
            PARTICULAR ELECTION
      881179 IS THE ENTRY PROCESS COMPLETE FOR THE 1988 GENERAL
            ELECTION
      881180 IS ANOTHER KIND OF MASTER FILE KEPT
      881181 IS OTHER FILE KEPT ON A COMPUTER
      881182 IS PRECINCT NUMBER ON THE RECORD OF EACH PERSON
      881183 IS EXACT ADDRESS OR PRECINCT NECESSARY TO LOCATE A
            RECORD
      881184 WITH OTHER FILE, CAN REGISTRANT BE IDENTIFIED FROM AN
            ADDRESS
      881185 DOES OTHER FILE INDICATE WHETHER A PERSON VOTED IN A
            PARTICULAR ELECTION
      881186 IS THE ENTRY PROCESS COMPLETE FOR THE 1988 GENERAL
            ELECTION

      881187 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT:  EITHER MASTER OR OTHER FILE
            INDICATES WHETHER A PERSON VOTED IN A PARTICULAR
            ELECTION

      881188 ANY OTHER REGISTRATION RECORDS THAT CONTAIN
            INFORMATION ABOUT VOTING PARTICIPATION

              REGISTRATION RECORDS CONTAIN VOTE INFORMATION

      881189 ARE LISTS OF PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE PROVIDED TO
            PRECINCTS ON ELECTION DAY
      881190 WHAT ARE THESE LISTS CALLED - FIRST MENTION
      881191 WHAT ARE THESE LISTS CALLED - SECOND MENTION
      881192 ARE THESE LISTS MARKED BY OFFICIALS TO INDICATE THAT
            SOMEONE VOTED
      881193 ARE THESE LISTS SIGNED BY THE VOTERS THEMSELVES
      881194 ARE VOTERS REQUIRED TO SIGN A BALLOT APPLICATION/
            VOUCHER
      881195 ARE FILES OF BALLOT APPLICATIONS KEPT
      881196 ARE RECORDS KEPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE BALLOT
      881197 ARE REGISTRATION RECORDS MARKED WHEN AN ABSENTEE
            BALLOT IS RETURNED

          REGISTRATION RECORDS DO NOT CONTAIN VOTE INFORMATION

      881198 MUST USE VOTING, AND NOT REGISTRATION, RECORDS FOR
            VOTING INFORMATION
      881199 VOTING INFORMATION IS KEPT ON REGISTRATION MASTER
            FILE/SET OF REGISTRATION RECORDS/OTHER
      881200 VOTE RECORDS KEPT IN THIS/OTHER OFFICE
      881201 ARE LISTS OF PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE PROVIDED TO
            PRECINCTS ON ELECTION DAY
      881202 ARE THESE LISTS MARKED BY OFFICIALS TO INDICATE THAT
            SOMEONE VOTED
      881203 ARE THESE LISTS SIGNED BY THE VOTERS THEMSELVES
      881204 ARE VOTERS REQUIRED TO SIGN A BALLOT APPLICATION/
            VOUCHER
      881205 ARE FILES OF BALLOT APPLICATIONS KEPT
      881206 ARE RECORDS KEPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE BALLOT
      881207 ARE REGISTRATION RECORDS MARKED WHEN AN ABSENTEE
            BALLOT IS RETURNED
      881208 IS A VOTER'S PRECINCT/ELECTION DISTRICT NEEDED TO FIND
            A PERSON'S NAME ON THE VOTING RECORDS
      881209 IF LACKING A PRECINCT NUMBER, CAN IT BE RETRIEVED FROM
            THE REGISTRATION RECORD

      881210 HOW SOON BEFORE A FEDERAL ELECTION MUST PEOPLE BE
            REGISTERED TO VOTE
      881211 HOW MANY PEOPLE REGISTERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON
            ELECTION DAY, NOVEMBER 1988
      881212 HOW MANY PEOPLE REGISTERED FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING
            THE CALENDAR YEAR 1988
      881213 APPROXIMATE NUMBER REGISTERED AT THE END OF 1987
      881214 APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF REGISTRATION RECORDS PURGED
            DURING 1988
      881215 APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS AS OF TODAY
      881216 SUMMARY: NUMBER OF NEW REGISTRATIONS DURING 1988
      881217 NUMBER OF ELECTION DISTRICTS/PRECINCTS IN THIS
            JURISDICTION
      881218 NUMBER OF POLLING PLACES FOR A GENERAL ELECTION
      881219 TIME LAG BETWEEN REGISTRATION AND COMPLETION OF
            PROCESSING
      881220 REGISTRATION AT THIS LOCATION OR AT ANOTHER LOCALE
      881221 REGISTRATION ALL YEAR YEAR ROUND/CERTAIN TIMES
      881222 IS THIS OFFICE THE ONLY PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN
            REGISTER
      881223 IS THIS ALWAYS THE ONLY OFFICE, OR ARE SOME LOCATIONS
            OPEN TEMPORARILY BEFORE ELECTIONS

              OTHER LOCATIONS FOR REGISTRATION - YEAR ROUND

      881224 PUBLIC LIBRARIES
      881225 FIRE STATIONS
      881226 SHOPPING MALLS/MARKETS
      881227 POST OFFICES
      881228 DRIVERS' LICENSE RENEWAL (SEC'Y OF STATE OFFICE)
      881229 SHERIFF'S OFFICE/POLICE STATIONS
      881230 COURTHOUSE
      881231 COLLEGE DORMS/UNIONS
      881232 APARTMENT COMPLEX CLUBHOUSE/COMMONS
      881233 COMMUNITY CENTERS/SENIOR CITIZENS CENTERS
      881234 ATHLETIC CLUB/YMCA
      881235 ORGANIZATION MEETING PLACE
      881236 CHURCHES/PARISH HALL
      881237 SOMEONE'S HOUSE
      881238 VOLUNTEERS GOING DOOR-TO-DOOR
      881239 SPECIAL MOBILE UNITS
      881240 OTHER
      881241 OTHER - SPECIFIED

           OTHER LOCATIONS FOR REGISTRATION - TEMPORARY BEFORE
                                ELECTIONS

      881242 CAN PEOPLE REGISTER AT OTHER LOCATIONS OPEN
            TEMPORARILY BEFORE ELECTIONS

      881243 PUBLIC LIBRARIES
      881244 FIRE STATIONS
      881245 SHOPPING MALLS/MARKETS
      881246 POST OFFICES
      881247 DRIVERS' LICENSE RENEWAL (SEC'Y OF STATE OFFICE)
      881248 SHERIFF'S OFFICE/POLICE STATIONS
      881249 COURTHOUSE
      881250 COLLEGE DORMS/UNIONS
      881251 APARTMENT COMPLEX CLUBHOUSE/COMMONS
      881252 COMMUNITY CENTERS/SENIOR CITIZENS CENTERS
      881253 ATHLETIC CLUB/YMCA
      881254 ORGANIZATION MEETING PLACE
      881255 CHURCHES/PARISH HALL
      881256 SOMEONE'S HOUSE
      881257 VOLUNTEERS GOING DOOR-TO-DOOR
      881258 SPECIAL MOBILE UNITS
      881259 OTHER
      881260 OTHER - SPECIFIED
      881261 WHEN ARE THESE OTHER PLACES OPEN

      881262 DOES JURISDICTION HAVE DEPUTY REGISTRARS
      881263 NUMBER OF DEPUTY REGISTRARS
      881264 QUALIFICATIONS FOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR - FIRST MENTION
      881265 QUALIFICATIONS FOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR - SECOND MENTION
      881266 QUALIFICATIONS FOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR - THIRD MENTION
      881267 ARE THERE LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF DEPUTY REGISTRARS
      881268 LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF DEPUTY REGISTRARS - FIRST
            MENTION
      881269 LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF DEPUTY REGISTRARS - SECOND
            MENTION
      881270 ARE THERE LIMITS ON WHERE DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN GO TO
            REGISTER VOTERS
      881271 LIMITATIONS ON WHERE DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN GO TO
            REGISTER VOTERS - FIRST MENTION
      881272 LIMITATIONS ON WHERE DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN GO TO
            REGISTER VOTERS - SECOND MENTION
      881273 LIMITATIONS ON WHERE DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN GO TO
            REGISTER VOTERS - THIRD MENTION
      881274 ARE THERE LIMITS ON THE HOURS DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN
            WORK
      881275 LIMITATIONS ON THE HOURS DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN WORK -
            FIRST MENTION
      881276 LIMITATIONS ON THE HOURS DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN WORK -
            SECOND MENTION
      881277 CAN PEOPLE REGISTER INITIALLY BY MAIL
      881278 WHERE DO PEOPLE PICK UP MAIL APPLICATIONS - FIRST
            MENTION
      881279 WHERE DO PEOPLE PICK UP MAIL APPLICATIONS - SECOND
            MENTION
      881280 WHERE DO PEOPLE PICK UP MAIL APPLICATIONS - THIRD
            MENTION
      881281 ARE MAIL APPLICATIONS ON DISPLAY AT THESE PLACES
      881282 DAYS OF THE WEEK REGISTRATION OFFICE IS ROUTINELY OPEN
            - FIRST MENTION
      881283 HOURS OF THE DAY REGISTRATION OFFICE IS ROUTINELY OPEN
            - FIRST MENTION
      881284 DAYS OF THE WEEK REGISTRATION OFFICE IS ROUTINELY OPEN
            - SECOND MENTION
      881285 HOURS OF THE DAY REGISTRATION OFFICE IS ROUTINELY OPEN
            - SECOND MENTION
      881286 ARE HOURS EXTENDED BEFORE AN ELECTION
      881287 EXTENDED HOURS - DAY OF THE WEEK - FIRST MENTION
      881288 EXTENDED HOURS - HOURS OF THE DAY - FIRST MENTION
      881289 DURATION OF EXTENDED HOURS - FIRST MENTION
      881290 EXTENDED HOURS - DAY OF THE WEEK - SECOND MENTION
      881291 EXTENDED HOURS - HOURS OF THE DAY - SECOND MENTION
      881292 DURATION OF EXTENDED HOURS - SECOND MENTION
      881293 EXTENDED HOURS - DAY OF THE WEEK - THIRD MENTION
      881294 EXTENDED HOURS - HOURS OF THE DAY - THIRD MENTION
      881295 DURATION OF EXTENDED HOURS - THIRD MENTION
      881296 IS THERE A PUBLICATION THAT EXPLAINS REGISTRATION
            ELIGIBILITY AND PROCEDURES
      881297 MAY INTERVIEWER HAVE A COPY
      881298 RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER - DAYS

                            INTERVIEWER NOTES

      881299 INTERVIEWER ALLOWED TO HANDLE THE RECORDS
      881300 INFORMATION RETRIEVAL WAS DONE BY SOMEONE ELSE
            OPERATING A COMPUTER
      881301 INTERVIEWER'S RATING OF OFFICE ORGANIZATION,
            ACCESSIBILITY, AND ACCURACY OF RECORDS

