Satisfaction with the country and party ID

We are OK when our guy is in office; things are terrible with the other guy

It is hardly a surprise that Americans see the country through profoundly strong partisan lenses. Republicans think things are going well with a Republican in the White House, and Democrats do the same when a Democrat is in the Oval Office. But there has been a shift over the last 20 years in how deeply negative we’ve become when the other party is in power. That wasn’t so true in the Clinton years and in the first term of George W. Bush, or earlier.

This chart shows data from Pew on satisfaction with how things are going in the country. The partisan differences are obvious and change abruptly with changes in the presidency. A minor note is also that the change happens immediately after the election, without waiting for the inauguration to actually install the new president.

The partisan effect is very clear. The thing I want to point out is how this changed in Bush’s second term and how very low and very flat satisfaction has been among the out-party in the Obama, Trump 1, Biden and Trump 2 years.

In the Clinton years, satisfaction was higher with Democrats than Republicans, but the lines move in parallel though the 8 years Clinton was in office. In the second term Republican satisfaction was higher than it had been for Democrats in the first term. 

In Bush’s first term Democratic satisfaction fell from the Clinton years but remained well above 20% until late in the first term, then stayed in the teens throughout the second term. In part that reflected the spike following 9/11 but satisfaction declined relatively slowly through the first term. GOP satisfaction remained high in the first term. In the second term, Republicans reacted to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and the onset of the Great Recession with a substantial decline in their satisfaction.

In each administration since Bush, the out-party had held satisfaction in the teens throughout, regardless of what happened during the administration. Nothing Obama did, or regardless of events during his term, Republican satisfaction remained in the low teens. For Trump’s first term, Democrats remained in the low teens, and for Biden Republican satisfaction always held at about 10%. Now in Trump 2 it is the Democrats turn to be extremely dissatisfied.

This suggests that in the Clinton years and first four years of Bush, there was some common response across party lines to national conditions. The out-party was less satisfied than the in-party, but both moved together up or down. That broke down in Bush’s second term and has never returned since.

The in-party does show some meaningful variation, with Democratic satisfaction rising through Obama’s two terms, as the economy recovered from the Great Recession, and Republican satisfaction drops with the Covid pandemic. In Biden’s term, initially high Democratic satisfaction declined as inflation rose in late 2021 through 2022, recovering only modestly. And so far in Trump 2 GOP satisfaction is high but has been trending down. None of this moved the out-party in those administrations.

V.O. Key’s classic The Responsible Electorate argued voters were not perfectly informed rational actors, steeped in policy, but instead were “not fools”. Voters, Key said, rewarded good performance and punished bad performance. The modern trends shown here since 2009 (and perhaps since 2006) show that for the out-party there is no reward, only stolid unhappiness. That leaves independents, perhaps, to respond to performance, and the in-party can express disappointment, but a major chunk of the electorate is no longer offering any rewards.

The picture is not quite so bleak if we turn from the direction of the country to reactions to the economy. Here too there are large in-party vs out-party differences, but a bit more parallel movement even in recent administrations.

The University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment is a monthly measure of economic perceptions of the current and future economy. Their data by party is only available since 2006 so offers no details of the Clinton administration or the first term of Bush, but the data otherwise gives a good look during the recent period when satisfaction with the direction of the country has remained at rock bottom among out-partisans.

As with satisfaction, there are large partisan differences, and these change abruptly with each change in administration, as does satisfaction. It is notable that no “real” economic conditions change this abruptly on Election Day or on Inauguration Day, so this is a good measure of how powerfully partisanship distorts our perception of “reality.” It is also clear that these shifts begin before the new president takes office. 

What is a bit different here, however, is that the partisan lines (and independents too) continue to move in rough parallel across all these administrations, while satisfaction stopped doing that in 2006 or so. The late Bush second term, when these data begin, shows parallel declines. Through Obama’s two terms all partisans showed increasing sentiment. In the pre-Covid Trump 1 term, the lines are each fairly flat and relatively high, then when Covid arrives all show a sharp drop. In Biden’s term Democrats, independents and Republicans all become more negative about the economy as inflation rises to its peak in June 2022, then all three groups become more positive in most of the remainder of Biden’s term. With Trump 2 so far, independents and Democrats are quite negative while Republicans have remained quite positive, which violates the general parallelism earlier.

This economic data shows that Key’s electorate as the god of reward and punishment may not be dead, at least with respect to the economy. All do seem to respond in similar ways though at different levels. Whether this translates into votes is a topic for another day, but similar responsiveness is a precondition for exacting reward or punishment.

It may be that questions about satisfaction with how things are going in the country are simply so saturated by politics now that they elicit a more explicitly partisan response than was the case in the 1990s and before. A similar trend holds for the “right direction or wrong track” question, a favorite of political pollsters who held it to be a great indicator of whether an administration was in good shape or bad shape. With large majorities saying “wrong track” for administrations since Bush, we see the same out-party nearly all saying wrong track and large partisan divides.

As political division has overrun broader considerations of what it means to be “satisfied with the direction of the country”, we are deeply divided indeed. The remaining responsiveness to economic conditions at least suggests the public may yet respond to good or bad times, if less so that they did in Key’s day, or in the late 1900s. For the 2000s, that responsiveness is at least lessened by universal disapprobation by the out-party.

(Thanks to Pew for making the satisfaction data available. See their report on the sour mood of the country here.)

Family finances under Trump and Biden

Family financial situation in Wisconsin

The cost of living, or “affordability”, is at the top of public concerns likely to shape the 2026 elections. Let’s look back over the last decade for some perspective.

For the past 10 years my Marquette Law School Poll has asked Wisconsin registered voters about their family’s financial situation:

Thinking about your family’s financial situation, would you say you are living comfortably, just getting by, or struggling to make ends meet?

The percentage saying they were living comfortably rose steadily during the first Trump administration, from around 50% in 2016 to over 60% by 2020. But as inflation rose in 2021 the trend reversed, falling to 44% near the end of the Biden administration in late 2024. In the first year of the second Trump term the percentage living comfortably has turned up modestly, standing at 50% as of October.

Those who say they are just getting by reverse the pattern for those living comfortably, declining from 2016-20, rising from 2021-24, with a slight downturn in 2025. Those struggling also move in rough parallel with those just getting by.

The decline in financial well-being during the Biden administration goes a long way to explaining Biden’s low approval rating during the last three years of his administration and Trump’s ability to win Wisconsin in 2024 by 0.9 percentage points, after having lost the state by 0.6 points in 2020.

The upturn in financial situation in 2025 contrasts with continued worries about inflation and the cost of living, which was the most cited problem in the October Marquette poll, at 27%, with an additional 9% citing the economy as most important. These concerns are substantial across the usual partisan lines: 23% of Republicans rank inflation as most important, as do 27% of independents and 32% of Democrats. Only Republicans rank another issue higher, immigration, at 31%.

What lies behind the changing sense of financial security or insecurity over the past decade? Partisanship plays a big role, as does income.

Family finances by party identification

The upturn in sense of living comfortably in 2025 is entirely due to Republicans who turned sharply more positive with the change of administration in January. By the end of the Biden administration only about 34% of Republicans said they were living comfortably, but by October this had soared to 63%.

In contrast, independents living comfortably declined throughout the Biden administration and show no upturn in 2025. Democrats viewed their financial situation as stable through the Biden years with a substantial downturn in 2025.

There is no evidence these changes in perceived financial situation reflect real fluctuations in income. In 2024, 37% of Republicans reported family incomes over $100,000, and 37% had that income in 2025. For independents, 28% had this level of income in both 2024 and 2025. Slightly more Democrats had incomes over $100,000 in 2025, 34%, than the 32% in 2024.

Family finances by income

This powerful effect of partisanship does not mean money doesn’t matter. Those living comfortably rises with income while those struggling goes down as income rises. More important is the changing sense of well-being over time and especially during the Biden years. Across each income level the percentage living comfortably fell during Biden’s term after rising during Trump’s first term. Those struggling declined or was flat during Trump’s first term but rose under Biden, especially for lower income families, though also for those of middle-income. For the high income group a decline in living comfortably translated into a rise in the feeling of just getting by. In 2025 all income groups show at least a small increase in sense of living comfortably and a downturn in those saying they are struggling.

Family finances by party ID and by income

We can disentangle the income and partisan effects a bit by looking at both simultaneously. Republicans, regardless of income, showed declining financial well-being throughout Biden’s term and have shown an improved outlook in 2025. (The data here are aggregated by year to provide enough cases to reliably estimate both partisan and income effects simultaneously.)

Both low- and high-income independents had declining finances in 2021-24 and continued down in 2025. Middle-income independents seem a bit better off in 2024 and 2025 than earlier in Biden’s term.

Low- and high-income Democrats held stable in their sense of family finances under Biden, with both dropping off a bit in 2025 under Trump. This contrasts with middle-income Democrats who felt increasingly worse off under Biden and are continuing down under Trump.

Not to be missed in all these details is that among Republicans and independents every income group felt their financial situation was better during Trump’s first term than during Biden’s. Democrats were more stable during the Biden years, with the important exception of middle-income Democrats who felt increasingly worse off.

Finances, party and the vote

The sage said, “it’s the economy, stupid” and this seems to hold up today as it did in the 1990s. If not the only thing that matters, these shifts in financial security from 2021-24 surely go a long way to pointing us to crucial groups who found themselves feeling worse off in 2024 than in 2020. This was especially true for middle-income people who reported being less secure regardless of party by 2024. For Republicans this reinforced their partisan inclinations while for Democrats greater insecurity is associated with a modest increase in votes for Trump, and likely reduced turnout: among Democrats living comfortably, 96% said they were certain to vote in 2024, while among those struggling 86% said the same. Turnout increased slightly for struggling Republicans vs comfortable ones, while turnout was lower for struggling independents than those living comfortably.

Voting for Trump was higher in 2024 for those struggling compared to the comfortable across parties, with modest differences among Republicans and Democrats but a large 40-point increase for Trump among struggling independents vs. comfortable ones.

The lesson for 2026 and beyond: “it’s the economy, stupid”.

Race, education and gender, Biden and Dems

It is well known that the combination of race, education and gender has become a powerful predictor of partisanship, vote and presidential approval. For Biden approval the contrast is sharp between whites (regardless of gender) without a college degree and those with a degree. But what deserves some attention is the opinion of Biden among non-white, non-college, males.

Non-white males without a degree are notably less approving of Biden than are any other category of non-white respondents. This echos some evidence that Biden underperformed with this group in the 2020 vote as well.

The approval pattern is somewhat more distinctive than the partisanship pattern.

White college graduates are more Republican than Democratic in partisanship, but notably more approving of Biden than are their non-college equivalents.

Non-white, non-college males who are evenly divided on Biden approval are heavily Democratic vs Republican, though a majority consider themselves independent. This contrasts with other non-white groups.

While the partisan differences are less substantial, the status of Biden approval among non-white, non-college males is a potential vulnerability for Biden, who already suffers badly among non-college whites.