With less than a month until the Iowa caucuses, former President Donald Trump has a wide lead for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. His supporters stand out for their desire for a presidential candidate who will push hard for policies that Republican voters want, even if it makes it much harder to get some things done.

Roughly six-in-ten Trump supporters (63%) say it is more important for a Republican nominee to focus on this if elected, while 36% say it’s more important for the party’s candidate to focus on finding common ground with Democrats.

Overall, Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters are fairly evenly split on this question, as are the 14% of GOP voters who back Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

By comparison, most of the 11% of Republican voters who support former ambassador and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for the nomination say it’s more important to focus on finding common ground with Democrats.

• Four years ago, 63% of Democratic voters said it was more important for a Democratic candidate to focus on finding common ground with Republicans if elected, while 35% said it was more important to push hard for policies Democrats wanted.

Trump leads the Republican field

A new Pew Research Center survey, conducted Nov. 27-Dec. 3, 2023, among 5,203 adults, including 1,901 Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters, finds Trump with a substantial lead over his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination.

Roughly half of Republican voters (52%) name Trump as their first choice for the nomination in response to an open-ended question.

Far smaller shares name DeSantis (14%), Haley (11%), Vivek Ramaswamy (3%) or Chris Christie (1%) as their first choice for the party’s nomination. No other candidate is mentioned by at least 1% of GOP voters.

Nearly two-in-ten Republican voters (18%) report being undecided, decline to answer or name another person.

Views of the GOP primary field and the campaign so far

• About two-thirds of Republican voters (68%) say that their party’s caucuses and primaries will do a good job of selecting the best candidate for the general election, while 31% say they will do a bad job. Trump supporters are particularly likely to say the primary process will do a good job of selecting the nominee.
• 54% of Republican voters rate the GOP field as either excellent (9%) or good (45%). This is comparable to GOP voters’ views of past Republican primary campaigns.
• Most Republican voters (66%) do not think the competition for the nomination will be close.
• About half of Republican voters (51%) say the campaign for the GOP nomination has been focused on the right issues, while 45% say it has not.
• A narrow majority (56%) describe the campaign so far as dull, while 42% say it has been interesting.

Other key findings from the survey

Biden’s job approval rating remains low.

A third of Americans approve of Biden’s handling of his job as president, while 64% disapprove. The share who approve of Biden’s performance is down 5 percentage points since January 2023.

• Biden’s rating is particularly down among Democrats and Democratic leaners over this year. While 61% of Democrats approve of his job performance, that reflects a 9-point drop since January.

By a 5-point margin, the Republican Party is seen as better able to effectively manage the federal government.

Democrats hold advantages on several other traits. The Democratic Party holds double-digit advantages in being seen as willing to work with the other party’s leaders and trying to unite the country. It has narrower advantages on governing ethically and honestly, having effective congressional leadership, and being concerned with the needs of middle-class people. Substantial shares of Americans see no difference between the parties on each of the traits included in the survey.

Donald Trump is the first choice of roughly half (52%) of Republican and Republican-leaning independent registered voters for the Republican nomination for president in 2024. Far smaller shares name Ron DeSantis (14%), Nikki Haley (11%), Vivek Ramaswamy (3%) or Chris Christie (1%) as their top choice.

About two-in-ten GOP voters (18%) name another person, report being undecided or decline to answer.

GOP candidate preferences vary by demographics

Republican voters ages 18 to 34 are slightly less likely than older Republican voters to say Trump is their first choice, though age differences on this question are modest overall.

Educational differences are more substantial: 66% of Republican voters with a high school education or less support Donald Trump, compared with 53% of those with some college experience, 37% of those with a four-year college degree and 34% of those with a postgraduate degree.

College-educated Republican voters are about twice as likely as those without college degrees to support either DeSantis or Haley – 40% of college graduates support one of these two candidates, compared with 19% of non-college graduates. (About a third of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters have college degrees, including roughly one-in-ten who have postgraduate degrees.)

While a majority of conservative Republican voters (57%) support Trump, a smaller share of moderate and liberal Republican voters (40%) back the former president. Republican moderates and liberals are about twice as likely as conservatives to say they are undecided about who they prefer for the GOP nomination or decline to answer (28% vs. 13%).

Similar shares of Republican men and women and similar shares of White and Hispanic Republicans favor Trump. However, men are slightly more likely than women to favor Haley (14% vs. 8%) and White Republican voters express slightly greater support than Hispanic Republican voters for DeSantis (16% vs. 9%).

Republican voters’ satisfaction with the candidate field

Roughly seven-in-ten Republican voters (71%) say they would be satisfied if Trump became the Republican nominee in 2024, including about half (49%) who say they would be very satisfied.

A majority (64%) also say they would be satisfied if DeSantis won the nomination, including 25% who would be very satisfied. About a quarter of Republican voters would be dissatisfied with either Trump or DeSantis (27% each).

About half of Republican voters (48%) would be satisfied if Haley were nominated, while about a third (32%) would be dissatisfied. Two-in-ten GOP voters say they have not heard enough about Haley to say.

Ramaswamy is less well known than Trump, DeSantis, Haley or Christie, with 27% of Republican voters saying they have not heard enough about him to have an opinion. Equal shares say they would be satisfied and dissatisfied (36% each) if Ramaswamy became the nominee.

About tw0-thirds of Republican voters (68%) would be dissatisfied if Christie were to become the nominee. Just 18% say they would be satisfied with this outcome.

How each candidate’s supporters feel about the rest of the field

A majority of Republican registered voters who name Trump as their first choice for the nomination (65%) nonetheless say they would be satisfied if DeSantis became the nominee. A slightly narrower majority of DeSantis supporters – 57% – say they would be satisfied with Trump as the nominee.

A majority of DeSantis supporters (64%) would be satisfied with Haley becoming the nominee. A similar share of Haley supporters (61%) would be satisfied with DeSantis.

However, most Haley supporters (68%) say they would be dissatisfied if Trump won the nomination, while just 31% would be satisfied. And Republican voters who support Trump are closely divided on the possibility of Haley as the Republican general election candidate: 41% say they would be dissatisfied, 39% say they would be satisfied.

Views of the Republican field and the primary election system

Just over half of Republican voters (54%) rate the overall field of candidates running for the nomination as either excellent (9%) or good (45%), while 35% describe the field as only fair and 11% rate it as poor.

Similar shares of DeSantis (65%) and Trump supporters (62%) describe the group of candidates running for the nomination as excellent or good.

Haley supporters are less likely to describe the field this way, with 48% describing it as excellent or good and 52% describing it as only fair or poor.

Overall, 68% of Republican voters say the caucuses and primaries will do a good job of selecting the best candidate, though just 10% say they will do a very good job.

Views of how well the caucuses and primaries will do at selecting the best Republican candidate for the general election also vary by candidate support.

Eight-in-ten Trump supporters say the caucuses and primaries will do a very (15%) or somewhat (65%) good job of selecting the best candidate, compared with about seven-in-ten DeSantis supporters (69%) and a smaller share of Haley supporters (54%).

• In January 2020, 77% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters said that their caucuses and primaries would do a good job of selecting the best general election candidate.

How Republican voters view Trump’s impact on the Republican Party

A majority of Republican voters (62%) say Donald Trump has had a positive impact on the Republican Party since he entered politics. A quarter say that his impact has been negative, while 13% say that the former president has had neither a positive nor negative impact.

Views vary by age group: Republican voters under 35 are less positive about Trump’s impact than those ages 35 and older. About two-thirds of Republican voters ages 35 and older (65%) say Trump has had a positive impact on the party, compared with about half (47%) of Republican voters ages 18 to 34.

Republican voters under 35 are 12 percentage points more likely than older Republican voters to say that Trump’s impact has been neither positive nor negative (23% vs. 11%). Three-in-ten younger Republican voters say Trump’s impact has been negative, as do 24% of those ages 35 and older.

Views on Trump’s impact also vary by education: 71% of Republican voters with a high school education or less view Trump’s impact as positive, compared with 63% of those with some college experience and 53% of those with college degrees. Republican college graduates are more than twice as likely as those without any college experience to say Trump’s impact has been negative (36% vs. 15%).

There are ideological differences among Republican registered voters in these views as well. About seven-in-ten conservative Republican voters (69%) view Trump’s impact on the GOP in a positive light, while 47% of moderate and liberal Republican voters say the same. About a third of moderate and liberal Republican voters say that Trump’s impact has been negative, while 20% say it has been neither positive nor negative.

A third of Americans currently say they approve of Joe Biden’s job performance as president, while nearly two-thirds (64%) say they disapprove. This is little changed over the last year.

Around six-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners (61%) say they approve of Biden’s job performance, compared with 7% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

Biden’s job approval among Democrats has declined 12 percentage points since October 2022 (from 73% to 61%). Over this period, Biden’s ratings among Republicans have remained very low (6% then, 7% today).

Biden’s approval among demographic groups

Biden’s job rating is relatively low among most major demographic groups.

Black adults give Biden higher ratings than Hispanic or White adults do. Still, only about half of Black adults (52%) say they approve of his job performance, while 43% disapprove.

Modest age differences in Biden’s ratings

Biden’s job ratings are in the low- to mid-30% range across age groups. Disapproval of Biden is modestly higher among adults ages 18 to 49 (66%) than those 50 and older (62%). 

Sizable educational differences

Majorities of adults with a four-year college degree (62%), some college experience (68%) or a high school diploma or less education (67%) say they disapprove of Biden’s job performance, while adults with a postgraduate degree are more evenly divided (48% approve, 50% disapprove).

Biden is viewed more positively by liberal Democrats than by conservative and moderate Democrats.

Liberal Democrats are more likely than conservative and moderate Democrats to say they approve of Biden (66% vs. 57%), as well as to say they strongly approve (37% vs. 29%). Overwhelming majorities of Republicans disapprove of Biden’s job as president, including nearly eight-in-ten (77%) who strongly disapprove. Conservative Republicans are much more likely than moderate and liberal Republicans to strongly disapprove of Biden (84% vs. 64%).

Please visit detailed tables for current views of Biden’s approval rating among other subgroups.

Public confidence in Biden to handle key issues remains low

Large majorities of Americans express little or no confidence in Biden’s ability to handle a number of issues, including economic and immigration policy. Confidence in Biden is particularly low in his ability to bring the country closer together.

Only about a quarter of Americans (24%) are very or somewhat confident Biden can bring the country closer together; 75% are not too or not at all confident.

His ratings are better – though largely negative – in other areas. Comparable shares are confident Biden can make good decisions on economic policy (36%), work effectively with Congress (35%) and handle an international crisis (35%). Slightly fewer are confident he can make wise decisions on immigration policy (32%). 

On each issue, roughly two-thirds of Americans say they are not too confident or not at all confident in Biden.

How public confidence in Biden’s handling of issues has changed over time

As with Joe Biden’s job approval, public confidence in his ability to handle several key issues has declined since the early months of his presidency.

The share of Americans saying they are very or somewhat confident in him to make good decisions on economic policy has fallen 20 percentage points since March 2021 (from 56% to 36%).

There have been similar declines in views of Biden’s handling of immigration (21 points) and his ability to bring the country together (24 points).

Confidence in Biden to handle an international crisis has slipped 8 points since last year, from 43% to 35%. The share expressing confidence in Biden to work effectively with Congress (35%) is largely unchanged from last year. (These questions were not asked in 2021.)

Majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are confident in Biden’s ability to handle four of the five dimensions asked on the survey. The exception is bringing the country closer together: 42% of Democrats say they are very or somewhat confident in Biden can do this, while 58% say they are not too or not at all confident he can.

Republicans and Republican leaners express little or no confidence in Biden across all five items. Republicans’ confidence in Biden’s ability to handle key issues has been low since early in his presidency.

There have been larger declines in the shares of Democrats expressing confidence in him on key issues. This is particularly the case when it comes to bringing the country together: 74% said they were very or somewhat confident in his ability to do this in March 2021. That share fell to 44% in July 2022, and is 42% in the current survey.

By a 5-percentage-point margin, more Americans say the Republican Party can effectively manage the federal government (30%) than say this about the Democratic Party (25%). A substantial share – 44% – say there is no difference between the two parties on this trait.

By comparison, the Democratic Party has an advantage over the Republican Party in several other areas. More Americans say the Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party when it comes to:

• Being willing to work with leaders from the other political party (30% vs. 19%)
• Trying to unite the country (30% vs. 20%)
• Governing in an honest and ethical way (29% vs. 22%)
• Having effective leaders in Congress (26% vs. 21%)
• Being more concerned with the needs of middle-class people (34% vs. 29%)

Americans are about equally divided over which party is better at selecting good candidates for office (25% say the Democratic Party, 23% say the Republican Party) or is more concerned with the needs of people like themselves (32% say the Democratic Party, 30% say the Republican Party).

However, on each of these characteristics, substantial shares of Americans – more than a third, and in several cases about half – say they see no difference between the two parties.

Partisans’ views of the Republican and Democratic parties

While partisans consistently say each of these positive characteristics better describes their own party than the opposing party, there are some differences in the size of the shares holding these views.

For example, 60% of Republicans say their own party is better able to effectively manage the federal government, compared with half of Democrats who say their party is better equipped to do this.

However, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to view their own party as governing honestly and ethically, having effective leaders, being concerned with the needs of middle-class people, trying to unite the country and being willing to work with leaders from the other side.

Favorability of Congress and the Republican and Democratic parties

About three-quarters of Americans (74%) have an unfavorable view of Congress, while 23% have a favorable view. Congress has been viewed unfavorably by the majority of the public for the last several years. And while these views are relatively unchanged since July, Congress’ favorability ratings are some of the most negative seen in nearly four decades of public opinion polling.

Majorities of the public also have unfavorable views of the Republican (64%) and Democratic (61%) parties. Negative views toward both parties are largely unchanged since July but have grown somewhat more negative in recent years: For example, in summer 2019, about four in ten Americans had a favorable view of the Republican Party and 47% had a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals:

Research team

Carroll Doherty, Director, Political Research
Jocelyn Kiley, Associate Director, Political Research
Baxter Oliphant, Senior Researcher
Hannah Hartig, Senior Researcher
Gabe Borelli, Research Associate
Andrew Daniller, Research Associate
Ted Van Green, Research Analyst
Andy Cerda, Research Assistant
Shanay Gracia, Research Assistant

Communications and editorial

Nida Asheer, Senior Communications Manager
Talia Price, Communications Associate
Anna Jackson, Editorial Assistant

Graphic design and web publishing

Alissa Scheller, Senior Information Graphics Designer
Reem Nadeem, Associate Digital Producer

Methodology

Andrew Mercer, Senior Research Methodologist
Dorene Asare-Marfo, Panel Manager
Dana Popky, Associate Panel Manager
Arnold Lau, Research Methodologist

The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Overview

The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish. The panel is being managed by Ipsos.

Data in this report is drawn from ATP Wave 139, conducted from Nov. 27 to Dec. 3, 2023, and includes an oversample of non-Hispanic Asian adults, non-Hispanic Black men, Hispanic men, Republican or Republican-leaning Hispanic adults who are registered to vote, and Republican or Republican-leaning 18- to- 29-year-olds in order to provide more precise estimates of the opinions and experiences of these smaller demographic subgroups. These oversampled groups are weighted back to reflect their correct proportions in the population. A total of 5,203 panelists responded out of 5,655 who were sampled, for a response rate of 92%. The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is 3%. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is 1%. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 5,203 respondents is plus or minus 1.8 percentage points.

Panel recruitment

The ATP was created in 2014, with the first cohort of panelists invited to join the panel at the end of a large, national, landline and cellphone random-digit-dial survey that was conducted in both English and Spanish. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Across these three surveys, a total of 19,718 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 9,942 (50%) agreed to participate.

In August 2018, the ATP switched from telephone to address-based sampling (ABS) recruitment. A study cover letter and a pre-incentive are mailed to a stratified, random sample of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. This Postal Service file has been estimated to cover as much as 98% of the population, although some studies suggest that the coverage could be in the low 90% range.¹ Within each sampled household, the adult with the next birthday is asked to participate. Other details of the ABS recruitment protocol have changed over time but are available upon request.²

We have recruited a national sample of U.S. adults to the ATP approximately once per year since 2014. In some years, the recruitment has included additional efforts (known as an “oversample”) to boost sample size with underrepresented groups. For example, Hispanic adults, Black adults and Asian adults were oversampled in 2019, 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Across the six address-based recruitments, a total of 23,862 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 20,917 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. Of the 30,859 individuals who have ever joined the ATP, 11,934 remained active panelists and continued to receive survey invitations at the time this survey was conducted.

The American Trends Panel never uses breakout routers or chains that direct respondents to additional surveys.

Sample design

The overall target population for this survey was noninstitutionalized persons ages 18 and older living in the U.S., including Alaska and Hawaii. It featured a stratified random sample from the ATP in which non-Hispanic Asian adults, non-Hispanic Black men, Hispanic men, Republican or Republican-leaning Hispanic adults who are registered to vote, and Republican or Republican-leaning 18- to- 29-year-olds were selected with certainty. The remaining panelists were sampled at rates designed to ensure that the share of respondents in each stratum is proportional to its share of the U.S. adult population to the greatest extent possible. Respondent weights are adjusted to account for differential probabilities of selection as described in the Weighting section below.

Questionnaire development and testing

The questionnaire was developed by Pew Research Center in consultation with Ipsos. The web program was rigorously tested on both PC and mobile devices by the Ipsos project management team and Pew Research Center researchers. The Ipsos project management team also populated test data that was analyzed in SPSS to ensure the logic and randomizations were working as intended before launching the survey.

Incentives

All respondents were offered a post-paid incentive for their participation. Respondents could choose to receive the post-paid incentive in the form of a check or a gift code to Amazon.com or could choose to decline the incentive. Incentive amounts ranged from $5 to $15 depending on whether the respondent belongs to a part of the population that is harder or easier to reach. Differential incentive amounts were designed to increase panel survey participation among groups that traditionally have low survey response propensities.

Data collection protocol

The data collection field period for this survey was Nov. 27 to Dec. 3, 2023. Postcard notifications were mailed to all ATP panelists with a known residential address on Nov. 27. 

Invitations were sent out in two separate launches: soft launch and full launch. Sixty panelists were included in the soft launch, which began with an initial invitation sent on Nov. 27. The ATP panelists chosen for the initial soft launch were known responders who had completed previous ATP surveys within one day of receiving their invitation. All remaining English- and Spanish-speaking sampled panelists were included in the full launch and were sent an invitation on Nov. 28.

All panelists with an email address received an email invitation and up to two email reminders if they did not respond to the survey. All ATP panelists who consented to SMS messages received an SMS invitation and up to two SMS reminders.

Data quality checks

To ensure high-quality data, the Center’s researchers performed data quality checks to identify any respondents showing clear patterns of satisficing. This includes checking for whether respondents left questions blank at very high rates or always selected the first or last answer presented. As a result of this checking, four ATP respondents were removed from the survey dataset prior to weighting and analysis.

Weighting

The ATP data is weighted in a multistep process that accounts for multiple stages of sampling and nonresponse that occur at different points in the survey process. First, each panelist begins with a base weight that reflects their probability of selection for their initial recruitment survey. These weights are then rescaled and adjusted to account for changes in the design of ATP recruitment surveys from year to year. Finally, the weights are calibrated to align with the population benchmarks in the accompanying table to correct for nonresponse to recruitment surveys and panel attrition. If only a subsample of panelists was invited to participate in the wave, this weight is adjusted to account for any differential probabilities of selection.

Among the panelists who completed the survey, this weight is then calibrated again to align with the population benchmarks identified in the accompanying table and trimmed at the 1st and 99th percentiles to reduce the loss in precision stemming from variance in the weights. Sampling errors and tests of statistical significance take into account the effect of weighting.

The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey.

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Dispositions and response rates

How family income tiers are calculated

Family income data reported in this study is adjusted for household size and cost-of-living differences by geography. Panelists then are assigned to income tiers that are based on the median adjusted family income of all American Trends Panel members. The process uses the following steps:

1. First, panelists are assigned to the midpoint of the income range they selected in a family income question that was measured on either the most recent annual profile survey or, for newly recruited panelists, their recruitment survey. This provides an approximate income value that can be used in calculations for the adjustment.
2. Next, these income values are adjusted for the cost of living in the geographic area where the panelist lives. This is calculated using price indexes published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. These indexes, known as Regional Price Parities (RPP), compare the prices of goods and services across all U.S. metropolitan statistical areas as well as non-metro areas with the national average prices for the same goods and services. The most recent available data at the time of the annual profile survey is from 2021. Those who fall outside of metropolitan statistical areas are assigned the overall RPP for their state’s non-metropolitan area.
3. Family incomes are further adjusted for the number of people in a household using the methodology from Pew Research Center’s previous work on the American middle class. This is done because a four-person household with an income of say, $50,000, faces a tighter budget constraint than a two-person household with the same income.
4. Panelists are then assigned an income tier. “Middle-income” adults are in families with adjusted family incomes that are between two-thirds and double the median adjusted family income for the full ATP at the time of the most recent annual profile survey. The median adjusted family income for the panel is roughly $71,800. Using this median income, the middle-income range is about $47,900 to $143,600. Lower-income families have adjusted incomes less than $47,900 and upper-income families have adjusted incomes greater than $143,600 (all figures expressed in 2022 dollars and scaled to a household size of three). If a panelist did not provide their income and/or their household size, they are assigned “no answer” in the income tier variable.

Two examples of how a given area’s cost-of-living adjustment was calculated are as follows: the Anniston-Oxford metropolitan area in Alabama is a relatively inexpensive area, with a price level that is 16.2% less than the national average. The San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley metropolitan area in California is one of the most expensive areas, with a price level that is 19.8% higher than the national average. Income in the sample is adjusted to make up for this difference. As a result, a family with an income of $41,900 in the Anniston-Oxford area is as well off financially as a family of the same size with an income of $59,900 in San Francisco. 

© Pew Research Center, 2023