The National Science Foundation funded the study through a grant to the University of Michigan (grant no. SES-2209438).
ANES Principal Investigators and staff designed the study and supervised data collection with input from the ANES advisory board and user community. The Principal Investigators were Nicholas Valentino at the University of Michigan and Shanto Iyengar at Stanford University. The Associate Principal Investigators were Sunshine Hillygus at Duke University and Daron Shaw at the University of Texas at Austin.
David Howell (University of Michigan) and Matthew DeBell (Stanford University) served as the study directors. The ANES staff on the project included Elora Choudhury, Lauren Guggenheim, Sang-Jung Han, Laurie Pierson, Rachel Smilan-Goldstein, and Jaime Ventura. Graduate student contributors were Avery Goods, Francy Luna Diaz, and Clinton Willbanks, while undergraduate support was provided by Junjie Li, Mallory Moore, and Phoebe Yi.
Data collection was performed by the Survey Research Operations (SRO) unit at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center (SRC), with support from SRC faculty. SRO developed the sampling plan and collaborated with ANES personnel on other aspects of the study’s technical design. Lead personnel on the project at SRO included Andrew Hupp, Grant Benson, Paul Burton, Theresa Camelo, Wen Chang, Stephanie Chardoul, Karl Dinkelmann, Raphael Nishimura, and Lisa Van Havermaet.
Marketing Systems Group provided the sampling frame.
This document is a brief guide and codebook for the American National Election Studies (ANES) 2024 Time Series Study, to accompany the full release of its pre-election and post-election data on May 19, 2026.
The ANES 2024 Time Series is a continuation of the series of election studies conducted since 1948 to support analysis of public opinion and voting behavior in U.S. presidential elections. The 2024 study features a mixed-mode design including in-person, internet, video, phone, and paper-and-pencil interviewing. Two separate fresh cross-sectional samples were drawn, one for use with in-person interviewing as the primary mode and the second for web interviewing as the primary mode. In addition, the 2024 study features a panel of respondents previously completed the ANES in 2016 and 2020, as well as interviews with individuals who previously participated in the 2024 General Social Survey (GSS).
American National Election Studies. 2026. ANES 2024 Time Series Study Full Release [dataset and documentation]. May 19, 2026 version. www.electionstudies.org
The current release (May 19, 2026) is a re-release of the 2024 Time Series study dataset with some important updates:
If you find errors or have comments or questions about the data, please communicate with ANES staff by writing to [email protected]
The study has four independently drawn sample components:
1.
Fresh sample for in-person interviews
2. Fresh sample for web
interviews
3. Panel re-interviews
4. GSS re-interviews (not
included in this release)
Another component of the study involved a brief interview with the spouses or partners of respondents in the fresh sample groups who were in spousal or cohabiting relationships.
Population. The two fresh samples for in-person and web interviews describe approximately the same population. The target population for the in-person sample was 232.5 million U.S. citizens age 18 or older living in the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. or Washington, D.C., and the target population for the web sample was 234.1 million U.S. citizens age 18 or older living in the 50 states or Washington, D.C. Both populations exclude those living in institutional or group quarters. In both modes, the sampling frame consisted of lists of residential addresses where mail is delivered. To be eligible to participate, a respondent had to reside at the sampled address and be a U.S. citizen aged 18 or older at the time of recruitment.
The ANES 2016-2020-2024 panel’s target population consisted of U.S. citizens who were 18 or older and living in the 50 states or Washington, D.C., immediately before the 2016 presidential election.
The General Social Survey’s target population was adult residents of the U.S. See GSS documentation for more information about GSS sampling. GSS re-interview data are not included in this data release and will be made available as a supplemental file.
Fresh in-person sample. The fresh in-person sample was a multi-stage stratified cluster sample. This is similar in general design, but different in details, from past designs of ANES Time Series studies. Sixty primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected from across the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C. The PSUs were metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) or non-MSA counties, or combinations of counties, to achieve a minimum population of 50,000 adult citizens. PSUs were explicitly stratified by quintiles of county-level Republican vote share in 2020 and terciles of county-level turnout in 2020, and implicitly stratified by region, and then selected at random with probability proportional to the number of occupied housing units as indicated by the 2020 U.S. Census, except that Los Angeles County, CA, Cook County, IL, Harris County, TX, and Maricopa County, AZ, were selected with certainty.
Within each PSU, four smaller areas were drawn (secondary sampling units, which were Census Block Groups or groups of contiguous CBGs to form a minimum size of 100 occupied housing units), and households were selected at random from within these areas from the U.S. Postal Service’s computerized delivery sequence file (DSF).
These secondary sampling units were explicitly stratified by the proportion of owner-occupied housing units (above-median or below-median within the PSU) and implicitly by the proportion of college graduates. Finally, the in-person sample addresses were explicitly stratified by the predicted average turnout (four categories, including no voter file match) and implicitly stratified by the predicted probability of voting for Trump in 2020. Probability of a Trump vote was calculated by (1) estimating a LASSO logistic regression model using ANES 2020 data (regressing ANES 2020 self-reported 2020 Trump vote over multiple variables from the voter file at the respondent level, (2) using the estimated model with the retained variables to estimate the probability of 2020 Trump vote for each voter matched to addresses selected in the sample, and (3) computing the average of these estimated probabilities over voters at the same address.
Fresh web sample. The fresh web sample was selected from the DSF in two phases from among residential addresses in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. In the first phase, the frame was explicitly stratified by quintiles of county-level Republican vote share in 2020, terciles of county-level turnout in 2020, and four census regions. A total of 40,000 addresses were selected in this phase. Then, in the second phase, 6,800 addresses were selected, explicitly stratified by the phase 1 strata above and also by predicted address average turnout in 2020 and 2022, and implicitly stratified by the address’ average probability of a 2020 Trump vote.
Mode sample differences. The fresh in-person sample component of the study does not include respondents from Alaska or Hawaii, whereas the fresh web sample component does. This is the main substantive design difference in eligibility and coverage for the two fresh samples, and for most analytic purposes, it is probably ignorable because the combined population of Alaska and Hawaii is less than one percent of the study population.
Panel sample. Respondents who completed both the ANES 2016 and ANES 2020 studies were invited to participate again in the ANES 2024 study, except for a very small number of past respondents who opted out and asked not to be contacted again.
Fresh in-person sample. An advance letter, including a study brochure and $5 in cash, was sent to each selected address. Following this, an interviewer visited the address to conduct a screening interview, which was used to randomly select one person from among the adult U.S. citizens living there to be invited for the 2024 interview. Those interviewed were given $25 or $50 during the initial phase of the field period, with the amount increasing to $100 after an initial non-response. Interviewers were authorized to offer $150 if necessary.
Fresh web sample. Selected addresses were sent a series of letters to recruit one household member to complete a screening survey. The initial invitation letter included $10 in cash and promised $40 for completing the online survey. The incentive was later escalated to $100 for initial non-respondents. The screening survey was used to randomly select one person from among the adult U.S. citizens living at the address to complete the 2024 questionnaire online.
In cases where the person who completed the screener was not selected to complete the 2024 questionnaire, they received either $40 or $100, as did the selected respondent after they completed the 2024 questionnaire. If the person who completed the screener was selected for the 2024 survey, they received one payment of $40 or $100 after completing both the screener and the 2024 questionnaire.
Panel sample. Panelists were invited by mail, email (when available), or both, and asked to complete the 2024 questionnaire online. Invitations included a prepaid $10 cash incentive with a promise of $40 for completing the survey, which later escalated to $100 after an initial non-response.
Spouse and partner survey. If a respondent in either of the fresh sample groups had a spouse or cohabiting partner, the spouse or partner was invited to complete a brief questionnaire, either by paper or online. Spouses/partners received immediate invitations to participate as soon as the respondent finished their survey. The in-person spouse/partner request was also accompanied by a $5 cash payment. If they were not immediately available, partners from both groups received written invitations. The web sample received an email invitation, and the in-person sample received a paper invitation left behind with the survey and $5 in cash enclosed. Both groups received an initial offer of $20 to complete the survey, which then escalated to $40. Reminders were sent to non-responding spouses/partners, accompanied by paper copies of the questionnaire. In-person non-responding partners were eventually sent web links to complete the survey. The spouse/partner survey was only administered during the pre-election study.
Respondents who completed a survey or a sufficient partial survey in the pre-election study were approached after the election and asked to complete a post-election survey. Potential post-election respondents were initially offered the same incentive amount they received for their pre-election survey. On January 1, 2025, incentive offers of $25 or $50 were increased to $100 for non-finalized in-person cases. On January 13, 2025, incentive offers of $40 were increased to $100 for non-finalized web cases. On January 16, 2025, incentive offers were updated to $200 for resistant non-finalized in-person cases.
Field dates. The ANES 2024 Time Series study conducted a pre-election survey between August 3, 2024, and November 5, 2024. Election Day was November 5, 2024. The study attempted to re-interview the same respondents using a post-election survey between November 7, 2024, and February 17, 2025.
Locations. Interviews in the face-to-face mode were usually conducted in respondents’ homes, but could also be conducted at any location convenient for the respondent. Video interviews and web surveys could be completed anywhere the respondent had internet access, whether on a computer or a mobile device. Phone surveys could be completed on any device that had phone service.
| Sample | Wave | Mode of Interview | N | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Face-to-face | Phone | Video | Web | Paper-and-pencil | |||
| * Not included in the full release, but will be available as a supplemental file. | |||||||
| Fresh in-person | Pre-election | 966 | 76 | 1,042 | |||
| Post-election | 354 | 227 | 344 | 925 | |||
| Fresh web | Pre-election | 2,063 | 245 | 2,308 | |||
| Post-election | 1,769 | 200 | 1,969 | ||||
| Panel | Pre-election | 2,171 | 2,171 | ||||
| Post-election | 2,070 | 2,070 | |||||
| GSS * | Pre-election | 987 * | 987 * | ||||
| Post-election | 807 * | 807 * | |||||
Modes of pre-election interview administration. Interviews in the face-to-face mode were conducted by trained interviewers using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) software on laptop computers. During a portion of the face-to-face interview, the respondent answered certain sensitive questions directly on the laptop computer, without the interviewer’s participation (known as computer-assisted self-interviewing or CASI). In the fresh web sample, panel sample, and GSS sample, respondents were eligible to complete the survey in the web mode. Toward the end of the field period, non-respondents in the fresh web sample received a highly abbreviated four-page paper-and-pencil (PAPI) questionnaire, and were able to complete the survey in either the web or paper-and-pencil mode. With the exception of n = 245 paper-and-pencil cases, all other respondents in the fresh web group completed the survey in the web mode. All panel and GSS respondents completed the survey via the web mode. All cases in the fresh in-person sample were initially invited to a face-to-face interview; however, in some cases, the interview was conducted partly or entirely by phone (n = 76) rather than face-to-face (n = 966).
Modes of post-election interview administration. All fresh web, panel, and GSS sample respondents from the pre-election survey were invited to complete the post-election survey using the same mode in which they completed the pre-election survey.
Most in-person sample respondents were offered the opportunity to complete the post-election survey by video. To be eligible to participate in the post-election study using the video mode, respondents had to both 1) have access to the internet at home, and 2) score lower than four on variable IW_RATE, indicating that they liked the pre-election interview. In-person sample respondents who were eligible to participate via video were asked to schedule an appointment during the post-election data collection period.
Respondents who were either not eligible for video, did not set a video appointment, or missed their video appointment received a face-to-face visit for the post-election study. In some cases, respondents in the in-person sample who could not be reached by video or face-to-face were subsequently interviewed by phone. Respondents completing the survey by video or phone had the questions from the CASI portion of the questionnaire read out loud to them by the interviewer.
Interview length. The median administration times for the pre-election interviews, not counting screening procedures, were approximately 93 minutes for the in-person sample, 63 minutes for the fresh web sample, and 72 minutes for the panel sample. The median administration times for the post-election interviews were approximately 99 minutes for the in-person sample, 68 minutes for the fresh web sample, and 71 minutes for the panel sample.
Languages. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish.
Pre-election interviews were considered sufficient to be counted as completions for weighting and calculation of the response rate when the survey was administered at least to the self-reported gender question (SELFGEND_GENDTYP) at the beginning of the CASI section of the questionnaire (and following other demographic items). Post-election interviews were considered sufficient to be complete if the respondent completed the VOTE section of the instrument. In both the pre- and post-election studies, respondents completing the associated abbreviated paper-and-pencil questionnaire are also counted as sufficient completions.
The following response rates are calculated using the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) formula for the minimum response rate, AAPOR Response Rate 1.
The pre-election response rate was 33.4 percent for the fresh in-person sample and 37.7 percent for the fresh web sample. The pre-election re-interview rate for the panel sample (conditional on previously completing the ANES 2016 and 2020 studies and being invited to the 2024 study) was 82.0 percent.
The overall post-election re-interview rate was 89.9 percent of pre-election respondents. The post-election re-interview rate for the fresh in-person sample was 88.8 percent and 85.3 percent for the fresh web sample. The post-election re-interview rate for the panel sample was 95.3 percent.
The pre-election response rates and post-election re-interview rates for the GSS sample will be reported in the supplemental release of those data.
Some variables, including date of birth, the respondent’s ZIP code, and verbatim answers to open-ended questions, are coded “-3. Restricted access” on this public use dataset. Data for many of these variables can be obtained through a Restricted Data Access agreement. Please see the ANES website for more information.
Responses to a selection of open-ended questions are made available to the public after the responses have been redacted for confidentiality.
Analyses should be weighted to represent the U.S. adult citizen population accurately. Sampling error calculations should account for the complex sample design and the effects of weighting on variance.
The data can be analyzed using the combined fresh sample, the fresh in-person sample alone, or the fresh web sample alone.
The list below indicates which weight variable to use for different
types of analyses with the full release data. In general, if any
post-election data are used for an estimate (alone or in combination
with pre-election data), a post-election weight variable should be used,
while analyses using solely pre-election data should use a pre-election
weight.
| Weight | Use for analysis from the … |
|---|---|
| V240101a | Pre-election fresh in-person sample alone |
| V240101b | Post-election fresh in-person sample alone |
| V240102a | Pre-election fresh web sample alone |
| V240102b | Post-election fresh web sample alone |
| V240103a | Pre-election fresh samples (fresh in-person + fresh web) |
| V240103b | Post-election fresh samples (fresh in-person + fresh web) |
| V240104a | Pre-election fresh web sample + PAPI |
| V240104b | Post-election fresh web sample + PAPI |
| V240105a | Pre-election fresh sample (fresh in-person + fresh web + PAPI) |
| V240105b | Post-election fresh sample (fresh in-person + fresh web + PAPI) |
| V240106a | Pre-election panel alone |
| V240106b | Post-election panel alone |
| V240107a | Pre-election full sample (fresh in-person + fresh web + panel) + PAPI |
| V240107b | Post-election full sample (fresh in-person + fresh web + panel) + PAPI |
| V240108a | Pre-election full sample (fresh in-person + fresh web + panel) |
| V240108b | Post-election full sample (fresh in-person + fresh web + panel) |
The study is not a simple random sample, so statistical procedures for complex sample designs must be used to obtain correct estimates of sampling errors and correct indications of statistical significance. Statistical software such as Stata, R with a survey analysis package, or SPSS with the Complex Samples package can perform a Taylor Series estimation of sampling errors when provided with the appropriate strata and cluster variables. In Stata, the command to set up this type of analysis is as follows:
svyset [pweight=WEIGHT], psu(CLUSTER) strata(STRATA)
In the code example above, WEIGHT would be replaced with the correct weight for the type of analysis being performed (as indicated in the previous section on weighting). STRATA and CLUSTER would be replaced with the variables for the corresponding analysis, as shown below.
| For weight | use variance PSU | and use variance stratum |
|---|---|---|
| V240101a | V240101c | V240101d |
| V240101b | V240101c | V240101d |
| V240102a | V240102c | V240102d |
| V240102b | V240102c | V240102d |
| V240103a | V240103c | V240103d |
| V240103b | V240103c | V240103d |
| V240104a | V240104c | V240104d |
| V240104b | V240104c | V240104d |
| V240105a | V240105c | V240105d |
| V240105b | V240105c | V240105d |
| V240106a | V240106c | V240106d |
| V240106b | V240106c | V240106d |
| V240107a | V240107c | V240107d |
| V240107b | V240107c | V240107d |
| V240108a | V240108c | V240108d |
| V240108b | V240108c | V240108d |
For example, the code to set up Stata for an analysis of the full sample is as follows:
svyset [pweight=V240107a], psu(V240107c) strata(V240107d)
For more information about weighted analysis of ANES data, see DeBell, How to Analyze ANES Survey Data: http://www.electionstudies.org/Library/papers/nes012492.pdf
When conducting design-consistent variance estimation, cases should be selected by designating a subpopulation for the analysis procedure, not by dropping cases from the analysis or excluding missing data listwise. For some analyses the estimated standard errors from these two methods may be the same, or nearly so, but in other circumstances, failing to designate a subpopulation makes the standard error estimates incorrect. Also, in some cases, failing to designate a subpopulation may prevent the calculation of standard errors altogether by reducing the number of cases in a stratum to one. If, for example, Stata’s output omits standard errors and includes the note, “Missing standard errors because of stratum with single sampling unit,” this is usually because the user has dropped cases (explicitly or through extensive listwise deletion) instead of designating a subpopulation. Designating a subpopulation will solve the problem. In brief, this means using code of the following general form (for proportions from a single variable, in Stata):
svy, subpop(INCLUDE):prop VAR
In this example, INCLUDE is the name of a variable you generate to identify the subpopulation (with included cases coded 1 and excluded case coded 0) and VAR is the name of the variable for which proportions are generated. Similarly, you may use:
svy, subpop(if VAR >=1 & VAR <=5): prop VAR
This example selects cases conditional on VAR having values from 1 through 5. Other statistical software, such as R and SPSS, have comparable procedures. For more information about this kind of procedure, see the How To Analyze ANES Survey Data document linked above or the documentation for the statistical software you use.
The weights are organized by sample group, which is distinct from the mode of interview. As detailed above in the Data Collection section, the fresh in-person sample includes interviews conducted in-person, by telephone, and over live two-way video. Weighting using the “in-person weight” selects the in-person sample, not only face-to-face interviews. Sample and mode can be identified (variables V240002a, V240002b and V240003), but within sample groups, the mode of interview was not randomly assigned, so analysts should be cautious about making mode comparisons or attributing differences among modes of interview to the interview mode itself; apparent mode differences may also be due to selection effects.
When reporting the sample size (n) for an analysis, the actual, unweighted sample sizes should be reported, and analysts should take care not to confuse weighted sample sizes with unweighted sample sizes. Some statistical software applications make this distinction more readily than others. Generally, software designed for design-consistent survey estimation will report actual sample sizes, but software using non-survey procedures (such as frequency weights) will not. When frequency weights are used, the weighted sample size usually does not reflect the actual number of cases used in an analysis procedure (because weights vary, most analyses will exclude one or more cases due to selection criteria, listwise deletion or both, and the sums of subgroup weights are not constrained to sum to the actual sample size). In this case, in addition to running a weighted analysis, it is necessary to also run an unweighted analysis (taking care to select the same cases) in order to obtain correct sample sizes.
The weights were computed in multiple steps to account for sample design features and to reduce various non-sampling error sources. The in-person and web pre-election surveys used a similar approach, as follows. Design weights were calculated to account for address sampling probabilities and the within-household selection of a single eligible adult. An adjustment was also performed to handle addresses whose eligibility was not able to be determined, redistributing their design weights to the remaining addresses with a known eligibility from their same corresponding stratum. To address both screening and main survey non-response, a propensity stratification approach was used for each component. In this approach, the probability of each eligible address to complete the survey was estimated using a logistic regression model of survey response over a set of covariates observed for both respondents and non-respondents. The eligible addresses were then divided into deciles of their estimated response propensities and the inverse of the average of these propensities for each decile was used as a non-response adjustment factor. Finally, a calibration adjustment was applied to ensure that the weighted sample distribution matched the population distribution with respect to various characteristics.
Upon some modelling of 2024 turnout and vote choice using ANES data, the following dimensions were ultimately selected to be used in the calibration:
The following variables (and categories) were used for the calibration:
Missing values in calibration variables were imputed for the purposes of weighting. Population benchmarks (control totals) were based on the 2023 American Community Survey 1-year estimates, except for population density, which was from the 2020 census, and metropolitan status, which was from the March supplement of the 2024 Current Population Survey.
To reduce weighting variability, the final weights were bounded at 5 times the average of their corresponding unbounded calibrated weights.
The panel survey used a similar approach, except that it started with the 2020 ANES final weights as an input weighting variable and only the main survey non-response adjustment and calibration procedure were applied, as the other adjustments were already embedded in the input weight.
Weights for various combinations of the samples (such as weights for the entire sample, or for the in-person and web combined) received two additional adjustments. First, the samples were integrated using a Hartley estimator composite factor. In this process, each sample received a composite factor θ (with 0 < θ < 1) proportional to the mean square error of their corresponding estimate for the proportion of Trump voters in the 2024 election. The mean square error was estimated using an estimate of bias and sampling variance. The bias was estimated as the difference between the sample estimate of Trump voter proportions and the true value according to the election results. The sampling variance estimate used respondent data accounting for all the design features, including weights, stratification, and clustering. Second, an additional calibration adjustment, following the same specifications as the initial calibration, was applied over the combined sample.
The ANES 2024 Time Series Study Full Release is available in multiple file formats: SPSS (.sav), Stata (.dta), Comma Separated Values (.csv), and a fixed-width raw data file that can be read into SAS, SPSS, and Stata using syntax statements that have been provided.
Variables are stored using formats optimized for their data type. Missing data are coded as negative numbers, for instance, “-8. Don’t know”.
Along with the dataset, users should also download and make use of the two following pieces of documentation:
The first piece of documentation is the Questionnaire, a document that provides information about each of the questions that were asked in the main survey. The questions in the Questionnaire are presented in the order they were asked. The Questionnaire includes the following information, where applicable, for each question: the section in which the question appears, question name, question wording, universe (where only a subset of respondents was to receive the question, which respondents those should be), and response options.
In addition to the Questionnaire, ANES separately provides the PAPI (paper-and-pencil) and SPS (Spouse and Partner Survey) survey questionnaires in PDF format. Both documents are available for download from the 2024 Time Series study page of the ANES website.
The second piece of documentation is the User Guide and Codebook. You are currently reading the User Guide, which provides a brief overview of the study and how to use its data and documentation.
The remainder of this file, after the User Guide, consists of the Codebook. Whereas the Questionnaire provides information about the questions asked in the survey, the Codebook provides information about the variables that appear in the dataset.
Questions and variables do not always have a one-to-one relationship. For instance, multiple questions may be combined into a single summary variable. Or various variables may be derived from a single question. Furthermore, not all variables have associated questions — for example, administrative variables.
The Codebook includes the following information, where applicable, for each variable: the variable name (all variable names start with a “V”, and summary variables end with the suffix “x”), variable label (with “PRE:” indicating that it is from the pre-election study), simplified question wording, response/code values and meanings, associated survey question(s), universe (where only a subset of respondents appear in a variable, which respondents those should be; note that universes are not included for most summary variables), information about whether randomization was used, and interviewer instructions.
These are numeric codes used in V241444x - PRE: SUMMARY: Full religion summary.
010. Protestant, NFS, other, unknown, inter-, or non-denominational
099. Christian, NFS, unknown, inter-, or non-denominational
100. 7th Day Adventist
101. Sabbatarian
109. Adventist (NFS)
110. Episcopalian; Anglican
120. American Baptist Association
121. American Baptist Churches USA (wrongly aka 'Northern Baptist')
122. Baptist Bible Fellowship
123. Baptist General Conference
124. Missionary Baptist; Baptist Missionary Association of America
125. Conservative Baptist Association of America
126. General Association of Regular Baptist Churches; GARB
127. National Association of Free Will Baptists; United Free Will Baptist Church
128. Primitive Baptist
129. National Baptist Convention in the USA
130. National Baptist Convention of America
131. National Primitive Baptist Convention of the USA
132. Progressive National Baptist Convention
133. National Baptist Convention NFS
134. Reformed Baptist (Calvinist)
135. Southern Baptist Convention
136. Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship
149. Baptist (NFS or other Baptist group not in codes 120-135)
150. United Church of Christ; UCC; Congregational; Congregationalist; Evangelical and Reformed Church
155. Congregational Christian
160. Church of the Brethren
161. Brethren (NFS)
162. Mennonite Church
163. Moravian Church
164. Old Order Amish
165. Quakers; Friends
166. Evangelical Covenant Church (not Anabaptist in tradition)
167. Evangelical Free Church, EFC, or EFCA (not Anabaptist in tradition)
168. Brethren in Christ
169. Apostolic Christian Church of America
170. Mennonite Brethren
171. Apostolic Christian Church Nazarene
180. Christian and Missionary Alliance; CMA; Alliance
181. Church of God (Anderson, IN)
182. Church of the Nazarene
183. Free Methodist Church
184. Salvation Army
185. Wesleyan Church
186. Church of God of Findlay, OH
199. Pentecostal (NFS); Church of God (NFS); Holiness (NFS); not ascertained whether R Pentecostal or Charismatic (Holin
200. Plymouth Brethren
201. Independent Fundamental Churches of America; IFCA
219. Independent-Fundamentalist (NFS)
220. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (formerly Lutheran Church in America and The American Lutheran Church); ELCA
221. Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod; LC-MS
222. Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; WELS
224. Lutheran Free Church, Association of Free Lutheran Churches, AFLC
225. Church of the Lutheran Brethren
229. Lutheran (other or NFS)
230. United Methodist Church; Evangelical United Brethren
231. African Methodist Episcopal Church; AME
232. African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
233. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
234. Primitive Methodist
235. Congregational Methodist (fundamentalist)
240. Fire-Baptized Holiness
242. Assemblies of the Lord Jesus Christ; AJLC
243. Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith; COOLJC
244. Church of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith; CLJC
245. Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ
246. International Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ
249. Methodist (other or NFS)
250. Assemblies of God; Assembly of God
251. Church of God (Cleveland, TN)
252. Church of God (Huntsville, AL)
253. International Church of the Four Square Gospel
254. Pentecostal Church of God
255. Pentecostal Holiness Church
256. United Pentecostal Church International
257. Church of God in Christ (incl. not ascertained whether 258)
258. Church of God in Christ International
260. Church of God of the Apostolic Faith
261. Church of God of Prophecy
262. Vineyard Fellowship
263. Open Bible Standard Churches
264. Full Gospel
267. Apostolic Pentecostal
270. Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
271. Cumberland Presbyterian Church
272. Presbyterian Church in America; PCA
275. Evangelical Presbyterian
276. Reformed Presbyterian
279. Presbyterian (other or NFS)
280. Christian Reformed Church (inaccurately known as 'Dutch Reformed')
281. Reformed Church in America
289. Reformed (other or NFS)
290. Christian Church; Disciples of Christ
291. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ
292. Churches of Christ; Church of Christ (NFS)
293. Christian Congregation
300. Christian Scientists
301. Mormons; Latter Day Saints; Community of Christ
303. Unitarian; Universalist
304. Jehovah's Witnesses
305. Unity; Unity Church; Christ Church Unity
306. Fundamentalist Adventist; Worldwide Church of God; United Church of God
400. Roman Catholic
501. Orthodox
502. Conservative
503. Reform
524. Jewish, other, no preference, or NFS
600. Catholic and Protestant
650. Messianic Judaism; Jews for Jesus
695. More than 1 major religion (e.g., Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.)
700. Greek Rite Catholic
701. Greek Orthodox
702. Russian Orthodox
703. Rumanian Orthodox
704. Serbian Orthodox
705. Syrian Orthodox
706. Armenian Orthodox
707. Georgian Orthodox
708. Ukrainian Orthodox
719. Eastern Orthodox (NFS or other specific Orthodox church)
720. Muslim; Islam
721. Buddhist
722. Hindu
723. Baha'i; Bahai
724. American Indian religions; Native American religions
725. New Age
726. Wicca; Wiccan
727. Pagan
730. Sikh
732. Konko Church
735. Spiritualists (not 'spiritual; must refer specifically to 'Spiritualism' or 'Spiritualists')
736. Religious Science; Science of Mind (not Scientology; not Christian Scientists); Centers for Spiritual Living
740. Other non-Christian /non-Jewish
750. Scientology
790. Religious /ethical cults
870. Other tradition not codeable to 010-790
879. R indicates having an affiliation but does not specify one
880. None
881. Agnostics
882. Atheists
888. DK whether considers self as part of a particular religion
889. RF to say if considers self as part of a particular religion
These are numeric codes used in V242165y1-y5, V242167y1-y5, V242169y1-y5, and V242171y1–y5.
1. Defense spending
2. Middle East
3. Iraq
4. War
5. Terrorism
6. Veterans
7. National defense (all other)
8. Foreign aid
9. Foreign Trade
10. Protection of US jobs
11. Serbia /Balkans
12. China
13. International affairs (all other)
14. Energy crisis
15. Energy prices
16. Energy (all other)
17. Environment
18. Natural Resources (all other)
19. Education and training
20. School funding
21. Education (all other)
22. AIDS
23. Medicare
24. Health (all other)
25. Welfare
26. Poverty
27. Employment
28. Housing
29. Social security
30. Income (all other)
31. Crime
32. Race relations
33. Illegal drugs
34. Police problems
35. Guns
36. Corporate Corruption
37. Justice (all other)
38. Budget
39. Size of government
40. Taxes
41. Immigration
42. Campaign finance
43. Political corruption
44. Ethics
45. Government power
46. Budget priorities
47. Partisan politics
48. Politicians
49. Government (all other)
50. The economy
51. Stock market
52. Economic inequality
53. Recession
54. Inflation
55. Economics (all other)
56. Agriculture
57. Science
58. Commerce
59. Transportation
60. Community development
61. Abortion
62. Child care
63. Overpopulation
64. Public morality
65. Domestic violence
66. Family
67. Young people
68. Sexual identity /LGBT+ issues
69. The media
75. Sexism /Gender issues
76. Afghanistan
77. Syria
78. Elections
79. Religion
80. Civility
81. Unity /division
82. Epidemic
700. Everything
750. All of them
800. Other problem
990. Not interpretable
Note: Code "-4" in the 2024 Time Series data is equivalent to code "997" (Other comment not matching any description) in the 2020 Time Series data.