Primer estudio nacional sobre los colegios dependientes de universidades:escuelas preuniversitarias: casi el 70 por ciento de los aspirantes no logra entrar
El sistema universitario cuenta con 51 escuelas secundarias, con una matrícula cercana a los 36 mil alumnos. El 67,18 por ciento de los aspirantes no supera los distintos sistemas de ingreso. Los datos surgen de un estudio encargado por el CIN y publicado por la Unicen.
Por Constanza Bonsignore
Las 51 escuelas secundarias dependientes de las universidades nacionales tienen alrededor de 36 mil alumnos, pero tendrían una población superior a los 105 mil si todos los aspirantes a ingresar pudieran hacerlo. Es decir, casi el 70 por ciento de los estudiantes no pasa los distintos sistemas de ingreso. Los datos surgen de un exhaustivo informe elaborado por Tomás Landivar, especialista en ciencias de la educación y director de la Escuela Nacional Ernesto Sabato de la Unicen, quien realizó el primer estudio sistemático sobre los colegios preuniversitarios nacionales.
"Es un estudio exploratorio y de interpelación, de análisis y debate para repensar las escuelas que tenemos", señaló Landivar en diálogo con PáginaI12. El trabajo fue encargado en 2014 por el Consejo Interuniversitario Nacional, ante la falta de información sobre estas instituciones. Ahora, el resultado de la investigación acaba de plasmarse en el libro Las escuelas secundarias de universidades nacionales argentinas, publicado por la editorial de la Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires.
Originalmente, el estudio tuvo como primer objetivo responder dos preguntas centrales, de las cuales no había datos concretos. ¿Cuántas son las escuelas de nivel secundario que poseen las universidades nacionales? ¿Cuáles son las características generales de esas escuelas?
El informe se basa en una recopilación de datos de 51 escuelas dependientes de universidades nacionales. Destaca que estas escuelas "atienden a nivel nacional una significativa matrícula estimada en 35.869 alumnos, la cual se encuentra en ascenso, ya que varias escuelas aún no completaron los 6 años de escolaridad, dada su reciente creación". Además de constatar la cantidad de estudiantes, señala que el 67,18 por ciento de los que aspiran a ingresar no lo logran, en general por los exámenes o cursos de ingreso. Los aspirantes rechazados son unos 14 mil cada año.
En ese sentido, el autor se pregunta por qué se excluye a tantos alumnos. "¿No será esta exclusión la razón fundamental que subyace en la idea de que las escuelas son instituciones de calidad?", plantea.
Landivar indaga y aborda los diferentes tipos de ingreso y los propósitos perseguidos por los mismos. "En poco más de la mitad de las escuelas, los alumnos ingresan por examen de ingreso en sus diferentes formas o por los promedios obtenidos en el nivel anterior. Estas son en general las escuelas más antiguas. Contrariamente, las más nuevas optan por un ingreso por sorteo", señala el investigador, quien considera que "los tipos de ingreso dan cuenta de modelos educativos diferentes, con finalidades distintas en el proceso formativo".
Por otro lado, el trabajo destaca que las actividades de extensión y de investigación tampoco caracterizan a las escuelas preuniversitarias, pese a que se trata de tareas centrales para la universidad pública, junto con la enseñanza. El 88,23 por ciento de las escuelas no realizan actividades de extensión acreditadas y el 92,16 por ciento no realiza actividades de investigación acreditadas. La lógica imperante parece ser distinta a la de las universidades.
El estudio presenta también gran cantidad de información acerca del acceso a los cargos directivos en las escuelas; distribución de las cargas horarias; existencia y tipo de evaluación del desempeño docente, de evaluación institucional; promoción y repitencia; capacitación docente; sistema informático de gestión y comunicación institucional; ciudadanía universitaria; entre otros.
Según Landivar, este trabajo "abre una gran puerta para iniciar procesos reflexivos y debates de fondo que den respuestas a las tantas preguntas que emergen de los datos comparados". "Además, muestra que existe una amplia diversidad y heterogeneidad entre las escuelas secundarias. Hay modelos antagónicos, escuelas progresistas que se ajustan a las necesidades de la época y otras escuelas que mantiene estructuras clásicas", señala. En esa línea, considera que "la diversidad de datos disparan reflexiones y nuevas preguntas que aventuran hipótesis de trabajos futuros".
Un Congreso convulsionado, Cambiemos sin jefe y el "feo día" de los radicales
Escenario Político
por Noelia Barral Grigera
La desconfianza domina la relación entre Cornejo y Macri
"Si hubieran estado hoy los gobernadores radicales, hubiéramos estado en la misma sintonía. El mal tiempo no les permitió llegar". Mauricio Macri deja el Gobierno como lo arrancó: culpando a las inclemencias climáticas por ausencias notorias en situaciones clave. Primero fue la ausencia de la ciudadanía en su primer discurso inaugural de las sesiones legislativas ante el Congreso. Y ahora, su última reunión de gabinete ampliado antes de dejar la Casa Rosada. Pero así como en 2016 no tuvo que ver el feo día, tampoco ayer pesó la lluvia. La primera plana del radicalismo decidió faltar a la cita con el Presidente porque, después de la derrota, ya no lo reconoce como jefe.
Alfredo Cornejo, gobernador de Mendoza, era el único que tenía una excusa creíble: está en China. Aunque a la vez, es el que menos necesitaba excusarse: mantiene desde hace años una relación tirantísima con Macri, a quien ha cuestionado públicamente más de una vez. Hace horas, por caso, avisó que ya no habrá liderazgos únicos en Cambiemos. Lo mismo hizo el jefe del interbloque en la Cámara de Diputados, Mario Negri, quien subrayó: "Los tres partidos que integramos Cambiemos estamos ahora en igualdad de condiciones". Coincidencia llamativa la de Cornejo y Negri, que mantienen por estas horas una disputa descarnada para quedarse con la conducción del bloque radical desde diciembre. Pero lo que no une el amor lo une el espanto. Y ninguno quiere ser ya mandado por Macri. Negri también tuvo una excusa para el faltazo de ayer a la reunión de despedida del gabinete ampliado: tenía turno para un chequeo médico. Queda la duda de si podría haber modificado esa cita.
El malestar con el ahora ex jefe de la coalición Cambiemos viene desde hace tiempo, aunque en las últimas horas se profundizó. A los radicales y también a la Coalición Cívica de Elisa Carrió no les cayó bien que Macri salga a proclamarse jefe de la oposición sin más. Y peor les cayó enterarse por los medios de que Cristian Ritondo podría ser el nuevo jefe del interbloque, si se dan algunos números que todavía dependen de tironeos al interior del todavía oficialismo.
Si Emilio Monzó mantiene a sus diputados adentro del bloque PRO, es probable que esa bancada sea la más numerosa adentro de Cambiemos y sólo con ese dato, el presidente del bloque PRO podría convertirse en presidente del interbloque Cambiemos. Si, en cambio, se lleva bajo otra denominación a su decena de legisladores, entonces sería la UCR el actor dominante y el habilitado a poner al jefe del interbloque. Pero también los radicales pueden tener fugas, porque en la pelea entre Negri y Cornejo, este último -en sociedad con Enrique "Coti" Nosiglia- amenaza con llevarse a sus cuatro diputados si el cordobés no le cede la conducción de la bancada.
Como si fuera poco, en un escenario de paridad entre ambos grupos, PRO y UCR, los votos que podrían terminar definiendo la presidencia del interbloque son los de la anticipadamente renunciada Elisa Carrió, que ya le avisó a Macri en la reunión que tuvieron a solas que no los quiere ni a Ritondo ni a Cornejo, porque tienen perfiles acuerdistas. La respuesta del Presidente fue elocuente. Un día después de esa reunión, el macrismo instaló a Ritondo como jefe de la bancada. Hay relaciones que ya no están para sutilezas.
El malestar por Ritondo, sin embargo, no lo sienten sólo los radicales y Carrió. También hubo revuelo en el PRO. El actual presidente de la bancada, Álvaro González -que reemplazó a Nicolás Massot cuando éste se fue a estudiar a Estados Unidos-, tiene intenciones de continuar en su puesto. Así se lo hizo saber frente a frente al Presidente la semana pasada. Se llevó una respuesta afirmativa que, a la luz de lo que pasó después, se evaporó en el viento. González tiene algunas características a su favor en la puja frente a Ritondo. La más fuerte: es un hombre de Horacio Rodríguez Larreta, el único PRO que quedó en pie. Pero Ritondo lo aventaja en picardía. El todavía ministro de Seguridad bonaerense logró que en la tensa reunión que compartieron a solas, María Eugenia Vidal le pida a Macri por su futuro. Y ayer mismo dijo públicamente, al salir del gabinete ampliado, que "seguramente" le tocará conducir el bloque del PRO. Y no se privó de anticipar los tiempos dialoguistas que espera comandar: "Seremos una oposición constructiva que no ponga palos en la rueda", dijo. En Cambiemos hay quienes todavía dudan: "Ojo que el que entra Papa, sale cardenal", avisan.
por Noelia Barral Grigera
La desconfianza domina la relación entre Cornejo y Macri "Si hubieran estado hoy los gobernadores radicales, hubiéramos estado en la misma sintonía. El mal tiempo no les permitió llegar". Mauricio Macri deja el Gobierno como lo arrancó: culpando a las inclemencias climáticas por ausencias notorias en situaciones clave. Primero fue la ausencia de la ciudadanía en su primer discurso inaugural de las sesiones legislativas ante el Congreso. Y ahora, su última reunión de gabinete ampliado antes de dejar la Casa Rosada. Pero así como en 2016 no tuvo que ver el feo día, tampoco ayer pesó la lluvia. La primera plana del radicalismo decidió faltar a la cita con el Presidente porque, después de la derrota, ya no lo reconoce como jefe.
Alfredo Cornejo, gobernador de Mendoza, era el único que tenía una excusa creíble: está en China. Aunque a la vez, es el que menos necesitaba excusarse: mantiene desde hace años una relación tirantísima con Macri, a quien ha cuestionado públicamente más de una vez. Hace horas, por caso, avisó que ya no habrá liderazgos únicos en Cambiemos. Lo mismo hizo el jefe del interbloque en la Cámara de Diputados, Mario Negri, quien subrayó: "Los tres partidos que integramos Cambiemos estamos ahora en igualdad de condiciones". Coincidencia llamativa la de Cornejo y Negri, que mantienen por estas horas una disputa descarnada para quedarse con la conducción del bloque radical desde diciembre. Pero lo que no une el amor lo une el espanto. Y ninguno quiere ser ya mandado por Macri. Negri también tuvo una excusa para el faltazo de ayer a la reunión de despedida del gabinete ampliado: tenía turno para un chequeo médico. Queda la duda de si podría haber modificado esa cita.
El malestar con el ahora ex jefe de la coalición Cambiemos viene desde hace tiempo, aunque en las últimas horas se profundizó. A los radicales y también a la Coalición Cívica de Elisa Carrió no les cayó bien que Macri salga a proclamarse jefe de la oposición sin más. Y peor les cayó enterarse por los medios de que Cristian Ritondo podría ser el nuevo jefe del interbloque, si se dan algunos números que todavía dependen de tironeos al interior del todavía oficialismo.
Si Emilio Monzó mantiene a sus diputados adentro del bloque PRO, es probable que esa bancada sea la más numerosa adentro de Cambiemos y sólo con ese dato, el presidente del bloque PRO podría convertirse en presidente del interbloque Cambiemos. Si, en cambio, se lleva bajo otra denominación a su decena de legisladores, entonces sería la UCR el actor dominante y el habilitado a poner al jefe del interbloque. Pero también los radicales pueden tener fugas, porque en la pelea entre Negri y Cornejo, este último -en sociedad con Enrique "Coti" Nosiglia- amenaza con llevarse a sus cuatro diputados si el cordobés no le cede la conducción de la bancada.
Como si fuera poco, en un escenario de paridad entre ambos grupos, PRO y UCR, los votos que podrían terminar definiendo la presidencia del interbloque son los de la anticipadamente renunciada Elisa Carrió, que ya le avisó a Macri en la reunión que tuvieron a solas que no los quiere ni a Ritondo ni a Cornejo, porque tienen perfiles acuerdistas. La respuesta del Presidente fue elocuente. Un día después de esa reunión, el macrismo instaló a Ritondo como jefe de la bancada. Hay relaciones que ya no están para sutilezas.
El malestar por Ritondo, sin embargo, no lo sienten sólo los radicales y Carrió. También hubo revuelo en el PRO. El actual presidente de la bancada, Álvaro González -que reemplazó a Nicolás Massot cuando éste se fue a estudiar a Estados Unidos-, tiene intenciones de continuar en su puesto. Así se lo hizo saber frente a frente al Presidente la semana pasada. Se llevó una respuesta afirmativa que, a la luz de lo que pasó después, se evaporó en el viento. González tiene algunas características a su favor en la puja frente a Ritondo. La más fuerte: es un hombre de Horacio Rodríguez Larreta, el único PRO que quedó en pie. Pero Ritondo lo aventaja en picardía. El todavía ministro de Seguridad bonaerense logró que en la tensa reunión que compartieron a solas, María Eugenia Vidal le pida a Macri por su futuro. Y ayer mismo dijo públicamente, al salir del gabinete ampliado, que "seguramente" le tocará conducir el bloque del PRO. Y no se privó de anticipar los tiempos dialoguistas que espera comandar: "Seremos una oposición constructiva que no ponga palos en la rueda", dijo. En Cambiemos hay quienes todavía dudan: "Ojo que el que entra Papa, sale cardenal", avisan.
Focus group entre votantes de Trump
Vice News realizó un programa especial intentando responder una pregunta: ¿por qué la base de votantes de Donald Trump sigue tan fuerte?
Según encuestas nacionales, el 82% de los votantes de Trump lo volvería a votar. Vice News llamó al consultor republicano, Frank Luntz, para que dirija un focus group en Pennsylvania, un distrito tradicionalmente demócrata en el que sin embargo ganó Trump en 2016. Fue el lugar en donde ganó por la menor diferencia de todos los estados, es decir que intuitivamente podrían haberse encontrado allí más cantidad de “arrepentidos”.
Súper Lunes de marchas en Chile
Reclaman que el Congreso no convalide las medidas de Piñera
Las organizaciones sociales y sindicales se movilizaron al Congreso para impedir que se aprueben las propuestas "que profundizan el modelo neoliberal". Más denuncias de violaciones a los derechos humanos y reclamo por una Asamblea Constituyente.
Súper Lunes de marchas en Chile.
Una multitud perteneciente a organizaciones sociales y sindicales dio este lunes dos vueltas alrededor del antiguo Congreso Nacional para exigirles a los legisladores que pongan un freno a la agenda social de Sebastián Piñera. Se trata del puñado de medidas propuestas por el mandatario en medio de la crisis social y que, según el pueblo movilizado, profundizan el modelo neoliberal.
Plagada de banderas y carteles, la ruidosa marcha apuntó a plantear a la salud pública, la vivienda, la educación y las pensiones como derechos que debe promover el Estado. Este fue el primer capítulo del “Súper Lunes”, movilización masiva convocada por la mesa de Unidad Social, un conglomerado de 70 organizaciones. Terminó en las puertas del Tribunal de Justicia.
Delante de los Carabineros que custodiaban el edificio, los trabajadores del Sindicato de Walmart colocaron una ancha bandera con la leyenda “No más abusos” y dirigentes de diversos espacios dieron sus discursos. Pidieron huelga legislativa, convocaron de manera encendida a movilización permanente --a “no bajar los brazos”-- y a continuar la lucha en Plaza Italia, foco de la protesta desde las 17.
Un momento histórico
“Estamos viviendo un momento histórico, frente a un Gobierno que no gobierna, instituciones del Estado que se están descomponiendo de manera escandalosa. Mientras los chilenos están en las calles exigiendo, un puñado de congresistas pretende validar la política legislativa de un gobierno que se cae a pedazos. Tenemos que echar a toda esta gente corrupta”, expresó Luis Mesina, de No+AFP. Bárbara Figueroa, presidenta de la Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (CUT), condenó las violaciones a los derechos humanos y reivindicó la asamblea constituyente y la idea de una nueva constitución.
Una de las consignas que más se cantaba era por viviendas dignas. Lidia Venegas, del Comité de Allegados Los Sin Tierra, que agrupa a 3500 familias, cuestionó la ley de integración aprobada en agosto, que “ha regalado terrenos a las inmobiliarias”, mientras los chilenos “mueren” esperando respuestas a la problemática. Venegas contó a este medio que su agrupación había sido recibida en La Moneda más temprano por funcionarios de segunda línea. Al parecer, no hubo contactos significativos entre los manifestantes y los parlamentarios, que discutían en comisiones algunas medidas de la agenda social. Del otro lado de las rejas, se les gritaba “les pasaremos la cuenta”.
Los estudiantes universitarios de Chile, representados por Emilia Schneider, determinaron una paralización indefinida hasta la conquista de una nueva Constitución. Ella es una de las víctimas del seguimiento policial a dirigentes que se conoció en los últimos días por una filtración de documentos. “Todavía no sabemos qué ha pasado con nuestros familiares; es por eso que no podemos dejar de estar presentes en todas las marchas”, remarcó Mónica Araya, de Familiares de Detenidos y Desaparecidos.
“No nos vamos ni cagando”, “El pueblo está en la calle pidiendo dignidad”, gritaban los chilenos bordeando el Congreso, con cacerolas y redoblantes, silbatos y cornetas. Los referentes se iban trasladando con megáfonos y parlantes dando erizados discursos. Los taxis protestaron en caravana a La Moneda pidiendo la renuncia de la ministra de transporte, Gloria Hutt. Si bien los uniformados rodeaban la zona y había hidrantes, la manifestación se desarrolló de forma pacífica. En simultáneo, en Plaza Italia, los guanacos lanzaban sus primeros chorros sobre los pocos manifestantes allí reunidos. En Chile se le llama “Súper Lunes” al día de marzo en que todo el mundo regresa de las vacaciones. Este viene siendo uno bien distinto.
Los paros del súper lunes
La Confederación Nacional de la Salud Municipalizada mantuvo el paro nacional indefinido que comenzó el 22 de octubre. La atención primaria de Chile, que atiende al 80 por ciento de la población, brindó turnos éticos. Una de las medidas de la agenda social --que está cerca de ser ley-- es la del Seguro Catastrófico de Salud, que implica “transferir recursos públicos (235 mil millones de pesos) a servicios privados”, explicó a Página/12 el dirigente Esteban Maturana. “Cuando una persona tenga una enfermedad catastrófica y cuente con un piso de un millón de pesos, el Estado lo subsidiaría a través de un seguro del sector privado”, detalló Maturana en torno a una de las cuestiones por las que este proyecto preocupa.
“Una de las críticas a la agenda social es que no da importancia a la educación”, indicó el presidente del Colegio de Profesores, Mario Aguilar, que representa a docentes de todos los niveles. Pese a que no convocaron a paro, “hay muchos colegios en los que no viene habiendo clases y la asistencia es baja por los problemas para desplazarse. “El principal cambio que necesitamos es el real fortalecimiento de la educación pública”, remarcó.
Por su parte, la Agrupación Nacional de Empleados Fiscales (ANEF), el equivalente a lo que en Argentina es ATE, también mantuvo un paro nacional (mañana evaluará su continuidad, de acuerdo “a las acciones que tome el Gobierno”). Carlos Aguilar, referente de la Agrupación, criticó la reforma tributaria y un proyecto de educación inicial que integra la agenda de Piñera porque “la mercantiliza”. “El Gobierno ha cambiado de tono, pero no ha cambiado en un milímetro su agenda”, analizó Aguilar.
Las organizaciones sociales y sindicales se movilizaron al Congreso para impedir que se aprueben las propuestas "que profundizan el modelo neoliberal". Más denuncias de violaciones a los derechos humanos y reclamo por una Asamblea Constituyente.
Súper Lunes de marchas en Chile.
Una multitud perteneciente a organizaciones sociales y sindicales dio este lunes dos vueltas alrededor del antiguo Congreso Nacional para exigirles a los legisladores que pongan un freno a la agenda social de Sebastián Piñera. Se trata del puñado de medidas propuestas por el mandatario en medio de la crisis social y que, según el pueblo movilizado, profundizan el modelo neoliberal.
Plagada de banderas y carteles, la ruidosa marcha apuntó a plantear a la salud pública, la vivienda, la educación y las pensiones como derechos que debe promover el Estado. Este fue el primer capítulo del “Súper Lunes”, movilización masiva convocada por la mesa de Unidad Social, un conglomerado de 70 organizaciones. Terminó en las puertas del Tribunal de Justicia.
Delante de los Carabineros que custodiaban el edificio, los trabajadores del Sindicato de Walmart colocaron una ancha bandera con la leyenda “No más abusos” y dirigentes de diversos espacios dieron sus discursos. Pidieron huelga legislativa, convocaron de manera encendida a movilización permanente --a “no bajar los brazos”-- y a continuar la lucha en Plaza Italia, foco de la protesta desde las 17.
Un momento histórico
“Estamos viviendo un momento histórico, frente a un Gobierno que no gobierna, instituciones del Estado que se están descomponiendo de manera escandalosa. Mientras los chilenos están en las calles exigiendo, un puñado de congresistas pretende validar la política legislativa de un gobierno que se cae a pedazos. Tenemos que echar a toda esta gente corrupta”, expresó Luis Mesina, de No+AFP. Bárbara Figueroa, presidenta de la Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (CUT), condenó las violaciones a los derechos humanos y reivindicó la asamblea constituyente y la idea de una nueva constitución.
Una de las consignas que más se cantaba era por viviendas dignas. Lidia Venegas, del Comité de Allegados Los Sin Tierra, que agrupa a 3500 familias, cuestionó la ley de integración aprobada en agosto, que “ha regalado terrenos a las inmobiliarias”, mientras los chilenos “mueren” esperando respuestas a la problemática. Venegas contó a este medio que su agrupación había sido recibida en La Moneda más temprano por funcionarios de segunda línea. Al parecer, no hubo contactos significativos entre los manifestantes y los parlamentarios, que discutían en comisiones algunas medidas de la agenda social. Del otro lado de las rejas, se les gritaba “les pasaremos la cuenta”.
Los estudiantes universitarios de Chile, representados por Emilia Schneider, determinaron una paralización indefinida hasta la conquista de una nueva Constitución. Ella es una de las víctimas del seguimiento policial a dirigentes que se conoció en los últimos días por una filtración de documentos. “Todavía no sabemos qué ha pasado con nuestros familiares; es por eso que no podemos dejar de estar presentes en todas las marchas”, remarcó Mónica Araya, de Familiares de Detenidos y Desaparecidos.
“No nos vamos ni cagando”, “El pueblo está en la calle pidiendo dignidad”, gritaban los chilenos bordeando el Congreso, con cacerolas y redoblantes, silbatos y cornetas. Los referentes se iban trasladando con megáfonos y parlantes dando erizados discursos. Los taxis protestaron en caravana a La Moneda pidiendo la renuncia de la ministra de transporte, Gloria Hutt. Si bien los uniformados rodeaban la zona y había hidrantes, la manifestación se desarrolló de forma pacífica. En simultáneo, en Plaza Italia, los guanacos lanzaban sus primeros chorros sobre los pocos manifestantes allí reunidos. En Chile se le llama “Súper Lunes” al día de marzo en que todo el mundo regresa de las vacaciones. Este viene siendo uno bien distinto.
Los paros del súper lunes
La Confederación Nacional de la Salud Municipalizada mantuvo el paro nacional indefinido que comenzó el 22 de octubre. La atención primaria de Chile, que atiende al 80 por ciento de la población, brindó turnos éticos. Una de las medidas de la agenda social --que está cerca de ser ley-- es la del Seguro Catastrófico de Salud, que implica “transferir recursos públicos (235 mil millones de pesos) a servicios privados”, explicó a Página/12 el dirigente Esteban Maturana. “Cuando una persona tenga una enfermedad catastrófica y cuente con un piso de un millón de pesos, el Estado lo subsidiaría a través de un seguro del sector privado”, detalló Maturana en torno a una de las cuestiones por las que este proyecto preocupa.
“Una de las críticas a la agenda social es que no da importancia a la educación”, indicó el presidente del Colegio de Profesores, Mario Aguilar, que representa a docentes de todos los niveles. Pese a que no convocaron a paro, “hay muchos colegios en los que no viene habiendo clases y la asistencia es baja por los problemas para desplazarse. “El principal cambio que necesitamos es el real fortalecimiento de la educación pública”, remarcó.
Por su parte, la Agrupación Nacional de Empleados Fiscales (ANEF), el equivalente a lo que en Argentina es ATE, también mantuvo un paro nacional (mañana evaluará su continuidad, de acuerdo “a las acciones que tome el Gobierno”). Carlos Aguilar, referente de la Agrupación, criticó la reforma tributaria y un proyecto de educación inicial que integra la agenda de Piñera porque “la mercantiliza”. “El Gobierno ha cambiado de tono, pero no ha cambiado en un milímetro su agenda”, analizó Aguilar.
Hillary contra Facebook: "Mark Zuckerberg tiene que pagar por lo que hizo"
La excandidata presidencial condenó las acciones de Facebook en las elecciones de 2016. Los demócratas intentan detener la influencia de Trump en redes.
La exsecretaria de estado y excandidata presidencial demócrata Hillary Clinton abordó el tema de la influencia de Facebook en los procesos electorales mundiales. Durante el estreno del documental The Great Hack, que narra el caso de la firma Cambridge Analytica, Clinton dijo que Mark Zuckerberg, fundador y CEO de Facebook, "debería pagar" por el daño que ha infligido a la democracia, según reportó el diario británico The Guardian.
Las declaraciones llegan en un momento de alta actividad para la excandidata, quien en las ultimas semanas ha aparecidos en numerosas entrevistas por la presentación de su más reciente libro, The Book of Gutsy Women (El libro de las mujeres con agallas), que coescribió junto con su hija Chelsea.
Su regreso a los reflectores, justo en el medio de la interna del Partido Demócrata, alimentó las especulaciones de que Clinton podría relanzar su campaña por la presidencia, sobre todo por el bajo crecimiento que ha tenido el puntero centrista Joe Biden ante las campañas de los progresistas Sanders y Warren.
Beto O'Rourke abandona la carrera por la nominación presidencial
El pasado 8 de octubre Trump lanzó un tuit en el que le sugería a la exsecretaria que volviera a la carrera por la presidencia. "No me tientes. Cumple con tu trabajo", respondió Clinton.
La semana pasada el multimillonario tecnológico testificó ante la Asamblea de Representantes, donde declaró que su plataforma no iba a censurar la publicidad política, aún si se tratara de anuncios que contuvieran mentiras.
"La propaganda funciona", dijo Clinton, y explicó que la información falsa que firmas como Cambridge propagan tendría un impacto inevitable en las elecciones. La exsecretaria recordó que, durante la elección de 2016, se propagó en Facebook la noticia de que el papa Francisco había respaldado la candidatura de Donald Trump, y eso "tuvo un impacto". Clinton advirtió que la situación sólo iba a empeorar ya que estas estrategias ya fueron probadas, "saben cómo ser exitosos".
Clinton sentenció: "Cuando Facebook es principal fuente de noticias para más de la mitad del pueblo estadounidense, y la única fuente de noticias a la que la mayoría de ellos prestan atención, y si anuncian que no se van a responsabilizar por difundir comerciales falsos, ¿cómo se supone que obtengas información correcta sobre cualquier cosa, ya no digamos sobre candidatos que están compitiendo por el cargo?".
Mark Zuckerberg durante su testimonio ante miembros de la Asamblea de Representantes
La excandidata dijo que no sabía si la reunión a puerta cerrada entre Trump y Zuckerberg había tenido algo que ver con el cambio en la política respecto a contenido político falso, pero agregó que "si yo fuera de mente conspirativa, sugeriría que parece haber una conexión obvia".
Se trata de un debate encarnizado. La semana pasada el CEO de Twitter Jack Dorsey, anunció que su red social prohibiría todo tipo de publicidad política, argumentando que la viralidad de un mensaje político debía de ganarse, no de comprarse. De inmediato Brad Parscale, actual jefe de campaña de Trump y director digital de la campaña de 2016, acusó a Dorsey de pretender censurar el mensaje republicano.
Tras su escandaloso intercambio con la legisladora Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, y después de que saliera a la luz una carta donde más de 250 empleados de Facebook piden cambios a dicha política, Zuckerberg silenciosamente removió algunos videos con información falsa. El argumento de Zuckerberg ante los cuestionamientos de AOC fue que Facebook quería que los usuarios vieran por sí mismos la información que las campañas difundían, y decidieran con libertad.
Durante el evento organizado por Netflix, Clinton dijo también que ocurría una "guerra contra la verdad" en la que un grupo de poderosos usaba la manipulación de la información para hacer lo que querían. Abordó el tema del Brexit, otra votación en la que Cambridge Analytica estuvo involucrada. "No sabía, en ese momento, la conexión directa. No sabia sobre el involucramiento de los que interfirieron en el Brexit, los mismos que interfirieron en nuestra elección", dijo.
La exsecretaria de estado y excandidata presidencial demócrata Hillary Clinton abordó el tema de la influencia de Facebook en los procesos electorales mundiales. Durante el estreno del documental The Great Hack, que narra el caso de la firma Cambridge Analytica, Clinton dijo que Mark Zuckerberg, fundador y CEO de Facebook, "debería pagar" por el daño que ha infligido a la democracia, según reportó el diario británico The Guardian.
Las declaraciones llegan en un momento de alta actividad para la excandidata, quien en las ultimas semanas ha aparecidos en numerosas entrevistas por la presentación de su más reciente libro, The Book of Gutsy Women (El libro de las mujeres con agallas), que coescribió junto con su hija Chelsea.
Su regreso a los reflectores, justo en el medio de la interna del Partido Demócrata, alimentó las especulaciones de que Clinton podría relanzar su campaña por la presidencia, sobre todo por el bajo crecimiento que ha tenido el puntero centrista Joe Biden ante las campañas de los progresistas Sanders y Warren.
Beto O'Rourke abandona la carrera por la nominación presidencial
El pasado 8 de octubre Trump lanzó un tuit en el que le sugería a la exsecretaria que volviera a la carrera por la presidencia. "No me tientes. Cumple con tu trabajo", respondió Clinton.
La semana pasada el multimillonario tecnológico testificó ante la Asamblea de Representantes, donde declaró que su plataforma no iba a censurar la publicidad política, aún si se tratara de anuncios que contuvieran mentiras.
"La propaganda funciona", dijo Clinton, y explicó que la información falsa que firmas como Cambridge propagan tendría un impacto inevitable en las elecciones. La exsecretaria recordó que, durante la elección de 2016, se propagó en Facebook la noticia de que el papa Francisco había respaldado la candidatura de Donald Trump, y eso "tuvo un impacto". Clinton advirtió que la situación sólo iba a empeorar ya que estas estrategias ya fueron probadas, "saben cómo ser exitosos".
Clinton sentenció: "Cuando Facebook es principal fuente de noticias para más de la mitad del pueblo estadounidense, y la única fuente de noticias a la que la mayoría de ellos prestan atención, y si anuncian que no se van a responsabilizar por difundir comerciales falsos, ¿cómo se supone que obtengas información correcta sobre cualquier cosa, ya no digamos sobre candidatos que están compitiendo por el cargo?".
Mark Zuckerberg durante su testimonio ante miembros de la Asamblea de Representantes
La excandidata dijo que no sabía si la reunión a puerta cerrada entre Trump y Zuckerberg había tenido algo que ver con el cambio en la política respecto a contenido político falso, pero agregó que "si yo fuera de mente conspirativa, sugeriría que parece haber una conexión obvia".
Se trata de un debate encarnizado. La semana pasada el CEO de Twitter Jack Dorsey, anunció que su red social prohibiría todo tipo de publicidad política, argumentando que la viralidad de un mensaje político debía de ganarse, no de comprarse. De inmediato Brad Parscale, actual jefe de campaña de Trump y director digital de la campaña de 2016, acusó a Dorsey de pretender censurar el mensaje republicano.
Tras su escandaloso intercambio con la legisladora Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, y después de que saliera a la luz una carta donde más de 250 empleados de Facebook piden cambios a dicha política, Zuckerberg silenciosamente removió algunos videos con información falsa. El argumento de Zuckerberg ante los cuestionamientos de AOC fue que Facebook quería que los usuarios vieran por sí mismos la información que las campañas difundían, y decidieran con libertad.
Durante el evento organizado por Netflix, Clinton dijo también que ocurría una "guerra contra la verdad" en la que un grupo de poderosos usaba la manipulación de la información para hacer lo que querían. Abordó el tema del Brexit, otra votación en la que Cambridge Analytica estuvo involucrada. "No sabía, en ese momento, la conexión directa. No sabia sobre el involucramiento de los que interfirieron en el Brexit, los mismos que interfirieron en nuestra elección", dijo.
Alberto Fernández acordó con AMLO reforzar las relaciones bilaterales y señaló:"La ideología no puede gobernar la diplomacia"
El Presidente electo busca impulsar nuevos acuerdos en la industria automotriz y de la carne. "Vamos a mejorar nuestras relaciones económicas y comerciales", prometió AMLO
El presidente mexicano aseguró que está predispuesto a ayudar a que la Argentina supere la crisis.
El presidente electo, Alberto Fernández, fue recibido hoy por el jefe de Estado mexicano, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, acordaron trabajar juntos para reforzar los vínculos bilaterales, y se explayaron sobre la situación de la Argentina ante el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI).
Fernández reveló en conferencia de prensa que habló de "mucho de lo que le pasa a la Argentina y de la necesidad de comprensión que tenemos de que el mundo entienda en el punto que hemos quedado".
La reunión se inició a las 14:50 en el despacho del presidente mexicano en el Palacio Nacional, en la Ciudad de México, y el principal foco de conversación fue la necesidad de relanzar las relaciones comerciales, para dar un salto cuantitativo.
Concretamente, desde el lado argentino se esbozó la necesidad de mejorar los términos de intercambio con el país azteca, ya que en la actualidad arroja un saldo negativo de 900 millones de dólares.
Para revertir ese balance, la idea es abrir mercados en México potenciando especialmente la exportación de carne argentina y también de piezas automotrices.
De esos temas estuvieron conversando desde muy temprano los economistas que acompañan a Fernández en la comitiva, Matías Kulfas y Cecilia Todesca, con autoridades del Gobierno de México, en el marco de reuniones donde también estuvo activo Felipe Solá, quien ya comienza a moverse como canciller de Fernández, pese a la negativa del futuro presidente de confirmarlo en el cargo.
Otro tema que se habría colado en la agenda de la cumbre sería un pedido de Fernández para que México tome partido por Argentina en lo que será la dura renegociación de la deuda con el Fondo Monetario Internacional.
Antes del encuentro, el presidente mexicano declaró que está predispuesto a ayudar a que la Argentina supere la crisis.
"Vamos a mejorar nuestras relaciones económicas y comerciales. Hay muchas cosas que podemos hacer, y que nos ayudemos mutuamente", dijo López Obrador durante una conferencia de prensa.
La decisión de Fernández de elegir a México como primer destino internacional luego de su victoria en las urnas se explica en parte por la apuesta de consolidar acuerdos con una economía fuerte que a nivel gubernamental se encuentra parada en el eje de los países de orientación progresista.
La tensa relación de Fernández con Jair Bolsonaro, el presidente del histórico principal socio económico del país, obliga a Fernández a buscar aliados de peso en otras latitudes.
Justamente en México se conformó el llamado "Grupo de Puebla", que agrupa a líderes progresistas de Latinoamérica, en una suerte de contrapeso del "Grupo de Lima", donde se reúnen los presidentes de los países de orientación "neoliberal".
El presidente mexicano aseguró que está predispuesto a ayudar a que la Argentina supere la crisis.
El presidente electo, Alberto Fernández, fue recibido hoy por el jefe de Estado mexicano, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, acordaron trabajar juntos para reforzar los vínculos bilaterales, y se explayaron sobre la situación de la Argentina ante el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI).
Fernández reveló en conferencia de prensa que habló de "mucho de lo que le pasa a la Argentina y de la necesidad de comprensión que tenemos de que el mundo entienda en el punto que hemos quedado".
La reunión se inició a las 14:50 en el despacho del presidente mexicano en el Palacio Nacional, en la Ciudad de México, y el principal foco de conversación fue la necesidad de relanzar las relaciones comerciales, para dar un salto cuantitativo.
Concretamente, desde el lado argentino se esbozó la necesidad de mejorar los términos de intercambio con el país azteca, ya que en la actualidad arroja un saldo negativo de 900 millones de dólares.
Para revertir ese balance, la idea es abrir mercados en México potenciando especialmente la exportación de carne argentina y también de piezas automotrices.
De esos temas estuvieron conversando desde muy temprano los economistas que acompañan a Fernández en la comitiva, Matías Kulfas y Cecilia Todesca, con autoridades del Gobierno de México, en el marco de reuniones donde también estuvo activo Felipe Solá, quien ya comienza a moverse como canciller de Fernández, pese a la negativa del futuro presidente de confirmarlo en el cargo.
Otro tema que se habría colado en la agenda de la cumbre sería un pedido de Fernández para que México tome partido por Argentina en lo que será la dura renegociación de la deuda con el Fondo Monetario Internacional.
Antes del encuentro, el presidente mexicano declaró que está predispuesto a ayudar a que la Argentina supere la crisis.
"Vamos a mejorar nuestras relaciones económicas y comerciales. Hay muchas cosas que podemos hacer, y que nos ayudemos mutuamente", dijo López Obrador durante una conferencia de prensa.
La decisión de Fernández de elegir a México como primer destino internacional luego de su victoria en las urnas se explica en parte por la apuesta de consolidar acuerdos con una economía fuerte que a nivel gubernamental se encuentra parada en el eje de los países de orientación progresista.
La tensa relación de Fernández con Jair Bolsonaro, el presidente del histórico principal socio económico del país, obliga a Fernández a buscar aliados de peso en otras latitudes.
Justamente en México se conformó el llamado "Grupo de Puebla", que agrupa a líderes progresistas de Latinoamérica, en una suerte de contrapeso del "Grupo de Lima", donde se reúnen los presidentes de los países de orientación "neoliberal".
Millions of Americans changed their racial or ethnic identity from one census to the next
Millions of Americans counted in the 2000 census changed their race or Hispanic-origin categories when they filled out their 2010 census forms, according to new research presented at the annual Population Association of America meeting last week. Hispanics, Americans of mixed race, American Indians and Pacific Islanders were among those most likely to check different boxes from one census to the next. The researchers, who included university and government population scientists, analyzed census forms for 168 million Americans, and found that more than 10 million of them checked different race or Hispanic-origin boxes in the 2010 census than they had in the 2000 count. Smaller-scale studies have shown that people sometimes change the way they describe their race or Hispanic identity, but the new research is the first to use data from the census of all Americans to look at how these selections may vary on a wide scale.
“Do Americans change their race? Yes, millions do,” said study co-author Carolyn A. Liebler, a University of Minnesota sociologist who worked with Census Bureau researchers. “And this varies by group.”
Why? There are many possibilities, although the researchers did not present any hard conclusions. By some measures, the data provide more evidence of Americans’ puzzlement about how the census asks separately about race and ethnicity. (The Census Bureau is considering revising its race and ethnicity questions for the next census, in 2020, in hopes of matching better how Americans think about this topic.) But there could be other reasons, too, such as evolving self-identity or benefits associated with being identified with some groups.
The Census Bureau granted the researchers restricted access to confidential data in return for a legally binding promise that they would not reveal details of any individual responses, and they produced their estimates by matching 2000 and 2010 census forms for the same people. Though they were able to analyze data for more than half the U.S population (and most of the 281 million counted in 2000), the amount of category-changing might be even higher in the total population, they said.
People of every race or ethnicity group altered their categories on the census form, but some groups had more turnover than others. Relatively few people who called themselves non-Hispanic white, black or Asian in 2000 changed their category in 2010, Liebler said. Responses by Hispanics dominated the total change, she said, but there was major turnover within some smaller race groups as well.
The largest number of those who changed their race/ethnicity category were 2.5 million Americans who said they were Hispanic and “some other race” in 2000, but a decade later, told the census they were Hispanic and white, preliminary data showed. Another 1.3 million people made the switch in the other direction. Other large groups of category-changers were more than a million Americans who switched from non-Hispanic white to Hispanic white, or the other way around.
Hispanics account for most of the growing number and share of Americans who check “some other race” on the census form. Many do not identify with a specific racial group or think of Hispanic as a race, even though it is an ethnicity in the federal statistical system. Census officials added new instructions on the 2010 census form stating that Hispanic ethnicity is not a race in an attempt to persuade people to choose a specific group. (That change, as well as other wording edits in the instructions to respondents between 2000 and 2010 may be one reason some people switched. The order of the questions and the offered categories did not change.) The Census Bureau is also testing a new race and Hispanic question that combines all the options in one place, rather than asking separately about race and Hispanic origin.
More than 775,000 switched in one direction or the other between white and American Indian or only white, according to preliminary data. A separate paper presented at the conference reported “remarkable turnover” from 2000 to 2010 among those describing themselves as American Indian. Ever since 1960, the number of American Indians has risen more rapidly than could be accounted for by births or immigration.
There also was considerable change within a decade’s time among some smaller race groups. For example, only one-third of Americans who checked more than one race in 2000 kept the same categories in 2010, according to preliminary data. Only two-thirds of non-Hispanic single-race Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders kept the same categories.
Previous research on people’s racial self-identification has found that they may change categories for many reasons, said demographer Sharon Lee of the University of Victoria in Canada, at the population conference. The question mode—whether people are asked in person, on a paper form, on the phone or online—makes a difference. Some people may change their category after they find out they had an ancestor of a different race, she said. Or they may decide there are benefits (such as priority in college admissions) to including themselves in a certain group.
Some category-changers were children in 2000 whose race was filled in by their parents, but by 2010 were old enough to choose for themselves, which may account for some of the change. Children in some groups in 2000—for example, white and black—were especially likely to be recorded in a different category in 2010, Liebler said. (Although she did not mention President Barack Obama, he chose to check only “black” on his 2010 census form, even though his mother was white and father black.)
Lee and Liebler said researchers need to account for the amount of change in people’s racial and Hispanic self-description in their work, but Lee cautioned that they should not overreact. “There is not a trivial amount of change,” she said, “but it’s not across every group.”
The analysis was done under a Census Bureau program to allow limited access to its confidential data for specific studies of important issues by outside researchers who agree not to reveal any personally identifying information about individuals. In this case, researchers did not have access to individual names, dates of birth or other personal information, because each person’s linked 2000 and 2010 forms were identified by a numerical code called a “personal identification key.”
The researchers only included in their analysis people living in households where someone in the family filled in their race or Hispanic origin. They excluded people whose details were supplied by neighbors or imputed by the Census Bureau, and those living in group quarters, such as college dormitories or prisons. They also dropped anyone who checked “some other race” and an additional race in 2000, because that category had an unusual amount of processing error. The researchers said the people they matched were not nationally representative.
Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification
College graduates increasingly align with Democratic Party
As the 2018 midterm elections approach, women and especially college graduates have moved toward the Democratic Party. By contrast, the Republican Party’s advantage in leaned party identification among white voters without a college degree has never been greater, dating back more than two decades.
While partisanship among voters usually does not change much on a yearly basis, some differences have widened over time, especially by educational attainment, gender and age. And these gaps are even larger when categories are combined, such as education, race and gender.
A new analysis of party identification, based on more than 10,000 interviews of registered voters conducted by Pew Research Center in 2017, finds that 37% of registered voters identify as independents, 33% are Democrats and 26% are Republicans.
Most independents lean toward one of the major parties; when their partisan leanings are taken into account, 50% of registered voters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 42% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. While the overall balance of leaned party affiliation has not changed much in recent years, this is the first time since 2009 that as many as half of registered voters have affiliated with or leaned toward the Democratic Party.
Since 2014, the last midterm election year, there have been notable changes in party identification among several groups of voters. And as we noted in our 2016 report on party affiliation, the composition of the Republican and Democratic electorates are less alike than at any point in the past quarter-century.
Persistent gender gap. For decades, women have been more likely than men to identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. But today, a 56% majority of women identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, while 37% affiliate with or lean toward the GOP. The share of women identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic is up 4 percentage points since 2015 and is at one of its highest points since 1992. Among men, there has been less recent change: 48% identify with the Republican Party or lean Republican, while 44% are Democrats or lean Democratic. That is comparable to the balance of leaned party identification since 2014.
Record share of college graduates align with Democrats. Voters who have completed college make up a third of all registered voters. And a majority of all voters with at least a four-year college degree (58%) now identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, the highest share dating back to 1992. Just 36% affiliate with the Republican Party or lean toward the GOP. The much larger group of voters who do not have a four-year degree is more evenly divided in partisan affiliation. And voters with no college experience have been moving toward the GOP: 47% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up from 42% in 2014.
Continued racial divisions in partisan identification. About half of white voters (51%) identify with the GOP or lean Republican, while 43% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. These figures are little changed from recent years. By contrast, African American voters continue to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic by an overwhelming margin (84% Democrat to 8% Republican). Hispanic voters align with the Democrats by greater than two-to-one (63% to 28%), while Asian American voters also largely identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (65% Democrat, 27% Republican).
Larger differences among whites by education. Most white voters with at least a four-year college degree (53%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic; 42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican. As recently as two years ago, leaned partisan identification among white college graduates was split (47% Democrat, 47% Republican). Majorities of white voters with some college experience but who do not have a degree (55%) and those with no college experience (58%) continue to identify as Republicans or lean Republican.
Millennials, especially Millennial women, tilt more Democratic. As noted in our recent report on generations and politics, Millennial voters are more likely than older generations to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. Nearly six-in-ten Millennials (59%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, compared with about half of Gen Xers and Boomers (48% each) and 43% of voters in the Silent Generation. A growing majority of Millennial women (70%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic; four years ago, 56% of Millennial women did so. About half of Millennial men (49%) align with the Democratic Party, little changed in recent years. The gender gap in leaned party identification among Millennials is wider than among older generations.
Long-term changes in partisan composition
The nation’s changing demographics – and shifting patterns of partisan identification – have had a profound impact on the makeup of the Democratic and Republican electorates.
Across several dimensions – race and ethnicity, education and religious affiliation – the profile of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters has changed a great deal over the past two decades. The composition of Republican and Republican-leaning voters has shown less change.
While a majority of voters (69%) are white non-Hispanics, nonwhite voters now make up an increasing share of all voters: 29% of registered voters are African American, Hispanic or Asian American or belong to another race, up from 16% in 1997. Nonwhites constitute nearly four-in-ten Democratic voters (39%), compared with 24% two decades ago. The GOP coalition also has become more racially and ethnically diverse, but nonwhites make up only 14% of Republican voters, up from 8% in 1997.
The educational makeup of the two parties’ electorates also has changed substantially over the past two decades. When race and education are taken into account, white voters who do to not have a college degree make up a diminished share of Democratic registered voters. White voters who do not have a four-year degree now constitute just a third of Democratic voters, down from 56% two decades ago. By contrast, non-college white voters continue to make up a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters (59% now, 66% in 1997).
Growing share of Democrats describe their views as ‘liberal’
The share of Democratic voters describing their political views as liberal has increased steadily since 2000. Republicans’ ideological views have changed little over past decade, but the share of Republicans identifying as conservatives rose between 2000 and 2008.
Currently, nearly half of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters (46%) say they are liberal, while 37% identify as moderates and 15% say they are conservatives. A decade ago, more Democrats described their views as moderate (44%) than liberal (28%), while 23% said they were conservative.
Conservatives have long constituted the majority among Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans (68%) characterize their views as conservative, while 27% are moderates and 4% are liberals. While there has been little change in Republicans’ self-described ideology in recent years, the share calling themselves conservatives rose from 58% in 2000 to 65% eight years later.
Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups
The balance of partisan affiliation – and the combined measure of partisan identification and leaning – has not changed substantially over the past two decades. However, Democrats hold a slightly larger edge in leaned party identification over Republicans now than in 2016 or 2015.
In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2017, 37% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 50% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican.
The 8-percentage-point Democratic advantage in leaned partisan identification is wider than at any point since 2009, and a statistically significant shift since 2016, when Democrats had a 4-point edge (48% to 44%). The analysis in this report draws on more than 10,000 interviews with registered voters in 2017 and tens of thousands of interviews conducted in previous years (see Methodology for additional detail).
There continue to be fundamental differences in the partisan orientation of different demographic groups, and in many cases these gaps have grown wider in recent years. For instance, gender, generational, geographic and educational divides are now as wide, or wider, than in Pew Research Center surveys going back more than two decades.
Wide gender gap in partisanship
As has been the case for more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, women are significantly more likely than men to associate with the Democratic Party. While the gender gap has changed little in recent years, it is as wide as it has been at any point during this period: Among registered voters, 56% of women affiliate with or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with 44% of men.
From 2010 through 2015, about half of women (51%-52%) identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party. But the share of women who identify with or lean to the Democratic Party has risen in recent years, to 54% in 2016 and 56% in 2017. The partisan breakdown of men is relatively unchanged over this period.
The Democratic gains among women have not come from increased affiliation with the party. Overall, the proportion of women voters who identify with (rather than lean toward) the Democratic Party has remained relatively constant for the past 25 years (in 1994, 37% of women said they identified with the Democratic Party, compared with 39% in 2017).
Black, Hispanic and Asian voters remain overwhelmingly Democratic
There are sizable and long-standing racial and ethnic differences in partisan affiliation, and they have shifted only modestly in recent years.
White voters continue to be somewhat more likely to affiliate with or lean toward the Republican Party than the Democratic Party (51% to 43%).
Since 2010, white voters have been more likely to align with the GOP than with the Democrats. However, the share of whites identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic has edged upward (43% now, up from no more than 40% from 2009 to 2016). This growth is attributable to a slight increase in Democratic-leaning independents, rather than a rise in Democratic affiliation.
By contrast, African American voters remain overwhelmingly Democratic: 84% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. Just 8% of black voters identify in some way with the Republican Party.
While black voters remain solidly Democratic, identification with the Democratic Party has declined modestly in recent years: About two-thirds of African Americans have identified as Democrats in the last several years, down slightly from the first half of Barack Obama’s presidency, when about three-quarters affiliated with the Democratic Party.
By more than two-to-one (63% to 28%), Hispanic voters are more likely to affiliate with or lean toward the Democratic Party than the GOP. The overall balance of partisan orientation among Hispanics is little changed over the last decade.
There is a similar balance of partisanship among Asian American registered voters: 65% identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, compared with 27% who identify as or lean Republican.
In 1998 (the first year for which sample sizes of Asian American voters were sufficiently large enough in Pew Research Center surveys), 53% of Asians identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 33% identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party. (Note: Only English-speaking Asian American voters are included in the data).
The share of Asian American voters who identify as Republican is now only 12%. While this is little changed in the last few years, it represents the continuation of a longer trend in declining Republican affiliation among Asian voters. Among Asians, identification with the Democratic Party has remained relatively stable over this period. The share of Asian voters who say they are political independents has risen steadily since 1998, reflecting a more general trend among all voters.
A gender gap in partisan affiliation and leaning is seen across racial and ethnic groups.
For instance, there is a 9-percentage-point gender gap among white voters: While 48% of white women affiliate with or lean toward the Democratic Party, 37% of white men do so. Similarly, there is an 8-point gender gap among black voters (87% of black women vs. 79% of black men), as well as among Hispanic voters (66% of women vs. 58% of men).
Educational gap in partisan orientation continues to grow
Higher educational attainment is increasingly associated with Democratic Party affiliation and leaning. At the same time, those without college experience – once a group that tilted more Democratic than Republican – are roughly divided in their partisan orientation.
These twin shifts have resulted in the widest educational gap in partisan identification and leaning seen at any point in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys.
In 1994, 39% of those with a four-year college degree (no postgraduate experience) identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 54% associated with the Republican Party. In 2017, those figures were exactly reversed.
Democratic gains have been even more pronounced among those who pursue postgraduate education. In 1994, those with at least some postgraduate experience were evenly split between the Democratic and Republican parties. Today, the Democratic Party enjoys a roughly two-to-one advantage in leaned partisan identification. While some of this shift took place a decade ago, postgraduate voters’ affiliation with and leaning to the Democratic Party have grown substantially just over the past few years, from 55% in 2015 to 63% in 2017.
By contrast, Republicans have been gaining ground over the past several years with those who do not have bachelor’s degrees. Among those with no more than a high school education, 47% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican, while 45% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. Democrats held a significant advantage among voters with a high school degree or less education for much of the late 1990s through early 2000s, and as recently as 2014 (47% Democratic, 42% Republican).
These overall patterns in education and partisanship are particularly pronounced among white voters. While the GOP has held significant advantages over the Democratic Party among white college graduates without postgraduate experience over much of the past two decades, these voters are divided in their partisanship today.
In 2017, 49% of white voters with a college degree (and no additional education) aligned with the Democratic Party, compared with 46% for the GOP. As recently as 2015, 51% of white voters with a college degree aligned with the Republican Party, compared with 43% for the Democratic Party.
And among voters with postgraduate experience, the Democratic advantage has grown. In 2017, 59% of white voters with at least some additional education beyond a four-year degree identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, while 37% identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party; as recently as 2015 that balance was slightly narrower (52% to 41%).
By contrast, white voters with no more than a high school education have moved more to the GOP over the last 10 years, though there has been little change since 2015. As recently as 2009, these voters were divided in leaned partisanship. Since then, Republicans have held significant advantages, including a 23-percentage-point lead in 2017 (58% Republican, 35% Democratic).
A wide – and growing – generational divide in partisanship
The generational gap in partisanship is now more pronounced than in the past, and this echoes the widening generational gaps seen in many political values and preferences.
Millennial voters (born 1981 to 1996) have had a Democratic tilt since they first entered adulthood; this advantage has only grown as they have aged.
Democrats enjoy a 27-percentage-point advantage among Millennial voters (59% are Democrats or lean Democratic, 32% are Republican or lean Republican). In 2014, 53% of Millennial voters were Democrats or leaned Democratic, 37% tilted toward the GOP.
Millennials remain more likely than those in older generations to call themselves independents (44% vs. 39% of Gen Xers, 32% of Boomers and 27% of Silents); still, the roughly two-to-one Democratic advantage among Millennials is apparent both in “straight” and “leaned” partisan affiliation.
Generation X voters (born 1965 to 1980) are more divided in their partisan attachments, but also tilt toward the Democratic Party (48% identify as or lean Democratic, 43% identify as or lean Republican). The balance of leaned partisan identification among Gen X voters has been relatively consistent over the past several years. Baby Boomer voters (born 1946 to 1964) are nearly evenly divided (48% identify as or lean Democratic, 46% Republican).
The Silent Generation (born 1928 to 1945) is the only generational group that has more GOP leaners and identifying voters than Democratic-oriented voters. About half (52%) of Silent Generation voters identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, a larger share than a decade ago; 43% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.
While there is a gender gap in partisan affiliation within every generational cohort, it is particularly pronounced among Millennial voters. A large majority of Millennial women (70%) identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with 49% of Millennial men.
This wide gender gap among Millennial voters is largely attributable to a marked shift among Millennial women. As recently as 2014, the Democratic advantage among Millennial women was a narrower – but still substantial – 21 percentage points, compared with 47 points today. The balance of partisanship among Millennial men was similar in 2014 as it is today (50% Democratic vs. 40% Republican).
Gender gaps in other generations are more modest. For instance, 57% of Silent Generation men identify with or lean toward the GOP, compared with 48% of Silent women.
Across all generations, nonwhite voters are overwhelmingly Democratic in their leanings, while whites are more divided. Among white voters, Millennials are the only generation in which the share of Democrats and Democratic leaners (52%) is greater than the share of Republicans and Republican leaners (41%).
Among older generations of whites – but particularly among white Silents – more voters align with the GOP than the Democratic Party.
White Silent Generation voters have moved toward the GOP in recent years. Today, 59% identify with or lean to the GOP, up from 43% a decade ago.
White Gen Xer and Boomer voters have remained relatively stable in their partisan makeup in recent years. In both generations, the GOP enjoys a similar modest advantage (11 percentage points among white Gen Xers, 12 points among white Boomers); these are similar to the balances in 2014.
Religious affiliation and party identification
White evangelical Protestants remain one of the most reliably Republican groups of voters, and the GOP’s advantage among this segment of the population has continued to grow in recent years: 77% of white evangelical voters lean toward or identify with the Republican Party, while just 18% have a Democratic orientation.
White mainline Protestant voters are more divided in their political identities. As has been the case for the last several years, a narrow majority (53%) affiliates with or leans to the GOP, while 41% lean toward or identify with the Democratic Party.
Black Protestant voters remain solidly Democratic in their partisan loyalties. Almost nine-in-ten (87%) lean toward or identify with the Democratic Party.
Overall, Catholic voters are roughly evenly split between the share who identify with or lean to the Republican (46%) and Democratic (47%) parties. But white Catholics and Hispanic Catholics diverge politically.
White Catholic voters now are more Republican (54%) than Democratic (40%). While the partisan balance among white Catholic voters is little changed in recent years, this group was more evenly divided in their partisan loyalties about a decade ago.
Hispanic Catholics, who represent a growing share of the Catholic population in the U.S., are substantially more Democratic in their orientation (64% of Hispanic Catholic voters affiliate with or lean to the Democratic Party, 27% to the GOP).
While Mormon voters remain a solidly Republican group (72% overall are Republican or Republican leaning), in recent years Mormons have been less likely to identify as Republican than in the past.
Mormon voters are now about as likely to identify as independent (41%) as they are to identify as Republican (45%). For most of the past two decades, majorities of Mormons called themselves Republicans.
By about two-to-one, Jewish voters continue to identify with or lean toward Democratic Party (67% vs. 31% who identify with or lean Republican). This balance is little changed over the last decade.
The religiously unaffiliated, a growing share of the population, have shown steady movement in orientation toward the Democratic Party. In 1994, about half (52%) of religiously unaffiliated voters leaned toward or identified with the Democratic Party. Today nearly seven-in-ten (68%) do so.
Urban voters grow more Democratic, rural voters more Republican
Voters in urban counties have long aligned more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, and this Democratic advantage has grown over time. Today, twice as many urban voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (62%) as affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican.
Overall, those who live in suburban counties are about evenly divided in their partisan loyalties (47% Democratic, 45% Republican), little changed over the last two decades.
Voters in rural areas have moved in a more Republican direction over the last several years. From 1999 to 2009, rural voters were about equally divided in their partisan leanings. Today, there is a 16-percentage-point advantage for the GOP among rural voters.
While there are racial and ethnic differences in the makeup of rural, suburban and urban areas, this overall pattern of geographic divergence is also seen among whites. Among rural whites, the GOP enjoyed a roughly 10-percentage-point advantage throughout much of the 2000s; the GOP advantage among rural white voters is now 24 percentage points (58% to 34%). At the same time, while urban white voters were roughly evenly divided in their political preferences for much of the last two decades, in recent years the Democratic Party has enjoyed a double-digit partisan advantage: Today, 54% of white urban voters are Democrats or lean Democratic, while 41% identify with the GOP or lean Republican.
Changing composition of the electorate and partisan coalitions
The demographic profile of voters has changed markedly in recent years, reflecting broader changes in the nation. The electorate is more racially and ethnically diverse than in the past. Voters also are older and better educated than they were two decades ago.
Overall, while non-Hispanic whites remain the largest share of registered voters (69%), their share is down from 83% in 1997. African Americans make up 11% of voters, a share that has changed little since then.
Hispanics constitute a much larger share of registered voters today (10%) than in the late 1990s (4% in 1997), though there has been relatively little change over the past decade. Asian Americans, who made up a tiny share of voters 20 years ago, now constitute 2% of voters. And voters who describe their race as “other” also make up a larger share of the electorate than in the past (5% today).
The overall growth in the racial and ethnic diversity of voters has changed the composition of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Yet the pace of change has been more pronounced among Democrats and Democratic leaners.
White registered voters make up a declining share of the Democratic Party. In 1997, 75% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters were white; that has dropped to a smaller majority today (59%). Nonwhite voters now make up about four-in-ten Democratic voters (39%), up from 24% in 1997.
Republican and Republican-leaning voters continue to be overwhelmingly white: 83% of Republican registered voters are white non-Hispanics, compared with 92% in 1997. The share of Republicans who are nonwhite increased from 8% to 14% over this period.
The electorate continues to grow older, impacting the age composition of Democratic and Republican voters. In 1997, the median age of all registered voters was 45; today the median age has risen to 50.
Nearly six-in-ten Republican and Republican-leaning voters (57%) are ages 50 and older, compared with 42% who are under 50. Among Democratic voters, a larger share are younger than 50 (53%) than 50 and older (46%).
Twenty years ago, the age profiles of the two parties were much more similar. At that time, comparable majorities of both parties’ voters were younger than 50 (61% of Republicans, 57% of Democrats).
In 1997, the median age of Republican voters was 43, while the median age of Democratic voters was 46. Today, the median age of Republican voters has increased nine years, to age 52, while the median age of Democratic voters has edged up to 48.
Parties’ educational profiles diverge
Over the past 20 years, the American electorate has become better educated, with the share of college graduates rising. In 1997, 45% of all registered voters had no college experience; today that share has fallen to 33%.
And while those with no college experience was the largest category of voters two decades ago, today the electorate is evenly divided – a third each are college graduates, have some college experience but no degree and have no more than a high school diploma.
Despite these shifts, Republican and Republican-leaning voters are no more likely to be college graduates than was the case two decades ago. And college graduates make up a smaller share of GOP voters than they did a decade ago.
Today, 28% of Republican voters have at least a four-year college degree; 35% have some college experience but no degree; and 37% have no college experience.
The educational composition of GOP voters is similar to what it was in 1997. At that time, 28% were at least college graduates; 32% had some college experience; and 40% had no more than a high school education. And in 2007, college graduates made up a greater share of Republican voters than is currently the case (35% of all GOP voters then, 28% now).
The educational makeup of Democratic voters has changed substantially over the past 20 years. Today, about four-in-ten Democrats (39%) have at least a college degree, up from 24% in 1997. And while voters with no more than a high school education constituted the largest share of Democratic voters 20 years ago, today college graduates make up the largest share.
Whites without a college degree remain the largest share of all registered voters, but their numbers have been on the decline due to growing diversity and rising levels of education in the population. In 1997, a majority of all registered voters (61%) were whites without a college degree. Over the past 20 years, that share has fallen to 44%.
The share of whites with at least a college degree has edged up from 22% of registered voters in 1997 to 25% today. Among nonwhites, the share with a college degree or more education has more than doubled, from just 3% in 1997 to 8% in 2017. And nonwhites without a college degree make up a much larger proportion of the electorate today (21%) than 20 years ago (13%).
Combining race and education, Democratic voters are very different today than they were 20 years ago. Today, non-college whites make up a third of all Democratic voters; they constituted a majority of Democrats (56%) in 1997. Since then, the share of white Democrats with at least a four-year degree has increased from 19% to 26%, and the share of nonwhite Democratic college graduates has more than doubled (from 5% to 12%).
Whites who do not have a four-year college degree continue to make up a majority of Republican voters, though a smaller majority than 20 years ago (59% now, 66% then). Whites with at least a four-year degree constitute about a quarter of Republican voters (24%), little changed from 1997 (26%).
Religiously unaffiliated voters make up increasing share of Democrats
The nation’s religious landscape has undergone major changes in recent years, with the share of the population who identify as Christian declining as the number of adults who do not identify with a religion has grown.
Religiously unaffiliated voters, who made up just 8% of the electorate two decades ago, now constitute about a quarter (24%) of all registered voters. Over this period, there have been declines in the shares of white mainline Protestants, white evangelical Protestants and white Catholics.
Religiously unaffiliated voters now account for a third of Democratic voters, up from just 9% in 1997. In fact, they make up a larger proportion of Democrats than do white Protestants (33% vs. 18%). In 1997, 40% of Democratic voters identified as white Protestants (evangelical or mainline), while just 9% were religiously unaffiliated. And white Catholics, who made up about one-in-five Democrats then (22%), account for only 10% of Democrats now.
Republicans continue to be mostly made up of white Christians: A third of Republican voters are white evangelical Protestants, which is little changed from 1997 (34%); 17% are white mainline Protestants (28% in 1997); and 17% are white Catholics (20% then).
While religiously unaffiliated voters constitute a much smaller segment of Republican than Democratic voters, the share of Republicans who do not identify with a religious denomination has risen. Currently, 13% of Republicans do not identify with a religion, up from 5% two decades ago.
As the 2018 midterm elections approach, women and especially college graduates have moved toward the Democratic Party. By contrast, the Republican Party’s advantage in leaned party identification among white voters without a college degree has never been greater, dating back more than two decades. While partisanship among voters usually does not change much on a yearly basis, some differences have widened over time, especially by educational attainment, gender and age. And these gaps are even larger when categories are combined, such as education, race and gender.
A new analysis of party identification, based on more than 10,000 interviews of registered voters conducted by Pew Research Center in 2017, finds that 37% of registered voters identify as independents, 33% are Democrats and 26% are Republicans.
Most independents lean toward one of the major parties; when their partisan leanings are taken into account, 50% of registered voters identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 42% identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. While the overall balance of leaned party affiliation has not changed much in recent years, this is the first time since 2009 that as many as half of registered voters have affiliated with or leaned toward the Democratic Party.
Since 2014, the last midterm election year, there have been notable changes in party identification among several groups of voters. And as we noted in our 2016 report on party affiliation, the composition of the Republican and Democratic electorates are less alike than at any point in the past quarter-century.
Persistent gender gap. For decades, women have been more likely than men to identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. But today, a 56% majority of women identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, while 37% affiliate with or lean toward the GOP. The share of women identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic is up 4 percentage points since 2015 and is at one of its highest points since 1992. Among men, there has been less recent change: 48% identify with the Republican Party or lean Republican, while 44% are Democrats or lean Democratic. That is comparable to the balance of leaned party identification since 2014.
Record share of college graduates align with Democrats. Voters who have completed college make up a third of all registered voters. And a majority of all voters with at least a four-year college degree (58%) now identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, the highest share dating back to 1992. Just 36% affiliate with the Republican Party or lean toward the GOP. The much larger group of voters who do not have a four-year degree is more evenly divided in partisan affiliation. And voters with no college experience have been moving toward the GOP: 47% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up from 42% in 2014.
Continued racial divisions in partisan identification. About half of white voters (51%) identify with the GOP or lean Republican, while 43% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. These figures are little changed from recent years. By contrast, African American voters continue to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic by an overwhelming margin (84% Democrat to 8% Republican). Hispanic voters align with the Democrats by greater than two-to-one (63% to 28%), while Asian American voters also largely identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (65% Democrat, 27% Republican).
Larger differences among whites by education. Most white voters with at least a four-year college degree (53%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic; 42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican. As recently as two years ago, leaned partisan identification among white college graduates was split (47% Democrat, 47% Republican). Majorities of white voters with some college experience but who do not have a degree (55%) and those with no college experience (58%) continue to identify as Republicans or lean Republican.
Millennials, especially Millennial women, tilt more Democratic. As noted in our recent report on generations and politics, Millennial voters are more likely than older generations to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic. Nearly six-in-ten Millennials (59%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, compared with about half of Gen Xers and Boomers (48% each) and 43% of voters in the Silent Generation. A growing majority of Millennial women (70%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic; four years ago, 56% of Millennial women did so. About half of Millennial men (49%) align with the Democratic Party, little changed in recent years. The gender gap in leaned party identification among Millennials is wider than among older generations.
Long-term changes in partisan composition
The nation’s changing demographics – and shifting patterns of partisan identification – have had a profound impact on the makeup of the Democratic and Republican electorates.
Across several dimensions – race and ethnicity, education and religious affiliation – the profile of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters has changed a great deal over the past two decades. The composition of Republican and Republican-leaning voters has shown less change.
While a majority of voters (69%) are white non-Hispanics, nonwhite voters now make up an increasing share of all voters: 29% of registered voters are African American, Hispanic or Asian American or belong to another race, up from 16% in 1997. Nonwhites constitute nearly four-in-ten Democratic voters (39%), compared with 24% two decades ago. The GOP coalition also has become more racially and ethnically diverse, but nonwhites make up only 14% of Republican voters, up from 8% in 1997.
The educational makeup of the two parties’ electorates also has changed substantially over the past two decades. When race and education are taken into account, white voters who do to not have a college degree make up a diminished share of Democratic registered voters. White voters who do not have a four-year degree now constitute just a third of Democratic voters, down from 56% two decades ago. By contrast, non-college white voters continue to make up a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters (59% now, 66% in 1997).
Growing share of Democrats describe their views as ‘liberal’
The share of Democratic voters describing their political views as liberal has increased steadily since 2000. Republicans’ ideological views have changed little over past decade, but the share of Republicans identifying as conservatives rose between 2000 and 2008.
Currently, nearly half of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters (46%) say they are liberal, while 37% identify as moderates and 15% say they are conservatives. A decade ago, more Democrats described their views as moderate (44%) than liberal (28%), while 23% said they were conservative.
Conservatives have long constituted the majority among Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans (68%) characterize their views as conservative, while 27% are moderates and 4% are liberals. While there has been little change in Republicans’ self-described ideology in recent years, the share calling themselves conservatives rose from 58% in 2000 to 65% eight years later.
Trends in party affiliation among demographic groups
The balance of partisan affiliation – and the combined measure of partisan identification and leaning – has not changed substantially over the past two decades. However, Democrats hold a slightly larger edge in leaned party identification over Republicans now than in 2016 or 2015. In Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2017, 37% of registered voters identified as independents, 33% as Democrats and 26% as Republicans. When the partisan leanings of independents are taken into account, 50% either identify as Democrats or lean Democratic; 42% identify as Republicans or lean Republican.
The 8-percentage-point Democratic advantage in leaned partisan identification is wider than at any point since 2009, and a statistically significant shift since 2016, when Democrats had a 4-point edge (48% to 44%). The analysis in this report draws on more than 10,000 interviews with registered voters in 2017 and tens of thousands of interviews conducted in previous years (see Methodology for additional detail).
There continue to be fundamental differences in the partisan orientation of different demographic groups, and in many cases these gaps have grown wider in recent years. For instance, gender, generational, geographic and educational divides are now as wide, or wider, than in Pew Research Center surveys going back more than two decades.
Wide gender gap in partisanship
As has been the case for more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, women are significantly more likely than men to associate with the Democratic Party. While the gender gap has changed little in recent years, it is as wide as it has been at any point during this period: Among registered voters, 56% of women affiliate with or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with 44% of men. From 2010 through 2015, about half of women (51%-52%) identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party. But the share of women who identify with or lean to the Democratic Party has risen in recent years, to 54% in 2016 and 56% in 2017. The partisan breakdown of men is relatively unchanged over this period.
The Democratic gains among women have not come from increased affiliation with the party. Overall, the proportion of women voters who identify with (rather than lean toward) the Democratic Party has remained relatively constant for the past 25 years (in 1994, 37% of women said they identified with the Democratic Party, compared with 39% in 2017).
Black, Hispanic and Asian voters remain overwhelmingly Democratic
There are sizable and long-standing racial and ethnic differences in partisan affiliation, and they have shifted only modestly in recent years. White voters continue to be somewhat more likely to affiliate with or lean toward the Republican Party than the Democratic Party (51% to 43%).
Since 2010, white voters have been more likely to align with the GOP than with the Democrats. However, the share of whites identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic has edged upward (43% now, up from no more than 40% from 2009 to 2016). This growth is attributable to a slight increase in Democratic-leaning independents, rather than a rise in Democratic affiliation.
By contrast, African American voters remain overwhelmingly Democratic: 84% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. Just 8% of black voters identify in some way with the Republican Party.
While black voters remain solidly Democratic, identification with the Democratic Party has declined modestly in recent years: About two-thirds of African Americans have identified as Democrats in the last several years, down slightly from the first half of Barack Obama’s presidency, when about three-quarters affiliated with the Democratic Party.
By more than two-to-one (63% to 28%), Hispanic voters are more likely to affiliate with or lean toward the Democratic Party than the GOP. The overall balance of partisan orientation among Hispanics is little changed over the last decade.
There is a similar balance of partisanship among Asian American registered voters: 65% identify with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic, compared with 27% who identify as or lean Republican.
In 1998 (the first year for which sample sizes of Asian American voters were sufficiently large enough in Pew Research Center surveys), 53% of Asians identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 33% identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party. (Note: Only English-speaking Asian American voters are included in the data).
The share of Asian American voters who identify as Republican is now only 12%. While this is little changed in the last few years, it represents the continuation of a longer trend in declining Republican affiliation among Asian voters. Among Asians, identification with the Democratic Party has remained relatively stable over this period. The share of Asian voters who say they are political independents has risen steadily since 1998, reflecting a more general trend among all voters.
A gender gap in partisan affiliation and leaning is seen across racial and ethnic groups.
For instance, there is a 9-percentage-point gender gap among white voters: While 48% of white women affiliate with or lean toward the Democratic Party, 37% of white men do so. Similarly, there is an 8-point gender gap among black voters (87% of black women vs. 79% of black men), as well as among Hispanic voters (66% of women vs. 58% of men).
Educational gap in partisan orientation continues to grow
Higher educational attainment is increasingly associated with Democratic Party affiliation and leaning. At the same time, those without college experience – once a group that tilted more Democratic than Republican – are roughly divided in their partisan orientation. These twin shifts have resulted in the widest educational gap in partisan identification and leaning seen at any point in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys.
In 1994, 39% of those with a four-year college degree (no postgraduate experience) identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party and 54% associated with the Republican Party. In 2017, those figures were exactly reversed.
Democratic gains have been even more pronounced among those who pursue postgraduate education. In 1994, those with at least some postgraduate experience were evenly split between the Democratic and Republican parties. Today, the Democratic Party enjoys a roughly two-to-one advantage in leaned partisan identification. While some of this shift took place a decade ago, postgraduate voters’ affiliation with and leaning to the Democratic Party have grown substantially just over the past few years, from 55% in 2015 to 63% in 2017.
By contrast, Republicans have been gaining ground over the past several years with those who do not have bachelor’s degrees. Among those with no more than a high school education, 47% affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican, while 45% identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. Democrats held a significant advantage among voters with a high school degree or less education for much of the late 1990s through early 2000s, and as recently as 2014 (47% Democratic, 42% Republican).
These overall patterns in education and partisanship are particularly pronounced among white voters. While the GOP has held significant advantages over the Democratic Party among white college graduates without postgraduate experience over much of the past two decades, these voters are divided in their partisanship today. In 2017, 49% of white voters with a college degree (and no additional education) aligned with the Democratic Party, compared with 46% for the GOP. As recently as 2015, 51% of white voters with a college degree aligned with the Republican Party, compared with 43% for the Democratic Party.
And among voters with postgraduate experience, the Democratic advantage has grown. In 2017, 59% of white voters with at least some additional education beyond a four-year degree identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, while 37% identified with or leaned toward the Republican Party; as recently as 2015 that balance was slightly narrower (52% to 41%).
By contrast, white voters with no more than a high school education have moved more to the GOP over the last 10 years, though there has been little change since 2015. As recently as 2009, these voters were divided in leaned partisanship. Since then, Republicans have held significant advantages, including a 23-percentage-point lead in 2017 (58% Republican, 35% Democratic).
A wide – and growing – generational divide in partisanship
The generational gap in partisanship is now more pronounced than in the past, and this echoes the widening generational gaps seen in many political values and preferences. Millennial voters (born 1981 to 1996) have had a Democratic tilt since they first entered adulthood; this advantage has only grown as they have aged.
Democrats enjoy a 27-percentage-point advantage among Millennial voters (59% are Democrats or lean Democratic, 32% are Republican or lean Republican). In 2014, 53% of Millennial voters were Democrats or leaned Democratic, 37% tilted toward the GOP.
Millennials remain more likely than those in older generations to call themselves independents (44% vs. 39% of Gen Xers, 32% of Boomers and 27% of Silents); still, the roughly two-to-one Democratic advantage among Millennials is apparent both in “straight” and “leaned” partisan affiliation.
Generation X voters (born 1965 to 1980) are more divided in their partisan attachments, but also tilt toward the Democratic Party (48% identify as or lean Democratic, 43% identify as or lean Republican). The balance of leaned partisan identification among Gen X voters has been relatively consistent over the past several years. Baby Boomer voters (born 1946 to 1964) are nearly evenly divided (48% identify as or lean Democratic, 46% Republican).
The Silent Generation (born 1928 to 1945) is the only generational group that has more GOP leaners and identifying voters than Democratic-oriented voters. About half (52%) of Silent Generation voters identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, a larger share than a decade ago; 43% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.
While there is a gender gap in partisan affiliation within every generational cohort, it is particularly pronounced among Millennial voters. A large majority of Millennial women (70%) identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, compared with 49% of Millennial men. This wide gender gap among Millennial voters is largely attributable to a marked shift among Millennial women. As recently as 2014, the Democratic advantage among Millennial women was a narrower – but still substantial – 21 percentage points, compared with 47 points today. The balance of partisanship among Millennial men was similar in 2014 as it is today (50% Democratic vs. 40% Republican).
Gender gaps in other generations are more modest. For instance, 57% of Silent Generation men identify with or lean toward the GOP, compared with 48% of Silent women. Across all generations, nonwhite voters are overwhelmingly Democratic in their leanings, while whites are more divided. Among white voters, Millennials are the only generation in which the share of Democrats and Democratic leaners (52%) is greater than the share of Republicans and Republican leaners (41%).
Among older generations of whites – but particularly among white Silents – more voters align with the GOP than the Democratic Party.
White Silent Generation voters have moved toward the GOP in recent years. Today, 59% identify with or lean to the GOP, up from 43% a decade ago.
White Gen Xer and Boomer voters have remained relatively stable in their partisan makeup in recent years. In both generations, the GOP enjoys a similar modest advantage (11 percentage points among white Gen Xers, 12 points among white Boomers); these are similar to the balances in 2014.
Religious affiliation and party identification
White evangelical Protestants remain one of the most reliably Republican groups of voters, and the GOP’s advantage among this segment of the population has continued to grow in recent years: 77% of white evangelical voters lean toward or identify with the Republican Party, while just 18% have a Democratic orientation. White mainline Protestant voters are more divided in their political identities. As has been the case for the last several years, a narrow majority (53%) affiliates with or leans to the GOP, while 41% lean toward or identify with the Democratic Party.
Black Protestant voters remain solidly Democratic in their partisan loyalties. Almost nine-in-ten (87%) lean toward or identify with the Democratic Party.
Overall, Catholic voters are roughly evenly split between the share who identify with or lean to the Republican (46%) and Democratic (47%) parties. But white Catholics and Hispanic Catholics diverge politically. White Catholic voters now are more Republican (54%) than Democratic (40%). While the partisan balance among white Catholic voters is little changed in recent years, this group was more evenly divided in their partisan loyalties about a decade ago.
Hispanic Catholics, who represent a growing share of the Catholic population in the U.S., are substantially more Democratic in their orientation (64% of Hispanic Catholic voters affiliate with or lean to the Democratic Party, 27% to the GOP).
While Mormon voters remain a solidly Republican group (72% overall are Republican or Republican leaning), in recent years Mormons have been less likely to identify as Republican than in the past. Mormon voters are now about as likely to identify as independent (41%) as they are to identify as Republican (45%). For most of the past two decades, majorities of Mormons called themselves Republicans.
By about two-to-one, Jewish voters continue to identify with or lean toward Democratic Party (67% vs. 31% who identify with or lean Republican). This balance is little changed over the last decade. The religiously unaffiliated, a growing share of the population, have shown steady movement in orientation toward the Democratic Party. In 1994, about half (52%) of religiously unaffiliated voters leaned toward or identified with the Democratic Party. Today nearly seven-in-ten (68%) do so. Urban voters grow more Democratic, rural voters more Republican
Voters in urban counties have long aligned more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, and this Democratic advantage has grown over time. Today, twice as many urban voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (62%) as affiliate with the GOP or lean Republican. Overall, those who live in suburban counties are about evenly divided in their partisan loyalties (47% Democratic, 45% Republican), little changed over the last two decades.
Voters in rural areas have moved in a more Republican direction over the last several years. From 1999 to 2009, rural voters were about equally divided in their partisan leanings. Today, there is a 16-percentage-point advantage for the GOP among rural voters.
While there are racial and ethnic differences in the makeup of rural, suburban and urban areas, this overall pattern of geographic divergence is also seen among whites. Among rural whites, the GOP enjoyed a roughly 10-percentage-point advantage throughout much of the 2000s; the GOP advantage among rural white voters is now 24 percentage points (58% to 34%). At the same time, while urban white voters were roughly evenly divided in their political preferences for much of the last two decades, in recent years the Democratic Party has enjoyed a double-digit partisan advantage: Today, 54% of white urban voters are Democrats or lean Democratic, while 41% identify with the GOP or lean Republican.
Changing composition of the electorate and partisan coalitions
The demographic profile of voters has changed markedly in recent years, reflecting broader changes in the nation. The electorate is more racially and ethnically diverse than in the past. Voters also are older and better educated than they were two decades ago. Overall, while non-Hispanic whites remain the largest share of registered voters (69%), their share is down from 83% in 1997. African Americans make up 11% of voters, a share that has changed little since then.
Hispanics constitute a much larger share of registered voters today (10%) than in the late 1990s (4% in 1997), though there has been relatively little change over the past decade. Asian Americans, who made up a tiny share of voters 20 years ago, now constitute 2% of voters. And voters who describe their race as “other” also make up a larger share of the electorate than in the past (5% today).
The overall growth in the racial and ethnic diversity of voters has changed the composition of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Yet the pace of change has been more pronounced among Democrats and Democratic leaners.
White registered voters make up a declining share of the Democratic Party. In 1997, 75% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters were white; that has dropped to a smaller majority today (59%). Nonwhite voters now make up about four-in-ten Democratic voters (39%), up from 24% in 1997.
Republican and Republican-leaning voters continue to be overwhelmingly white: 83% of Republican registered voters are white non-Hispanics, compared with 92% in 1997. The share of Republicans who are nonwhite increased from 8% to 14% over this period.
The electorate continues to grow older, impacting the age composition of Democratic and Republican voters. In 1997, the median age of all registered voters was 45; today the median age has risen to 50.
Nearly six-in-ten Republican and Republican-leaning voters (57%) are ages 50 and older, compared with 42% who are under 50. Among Democratic voters, a larger share are younger than 50 (53%) than 50 and older (46%).
Twenty years ago, the age profiles of the two parties were much more similar. At that time, comparable majorities of both parties’ voters were younger than 50 (61% of Republicans, 57% of Democrats).
In 1997, the median age of Republican voters was 43, while the median age of Democratic voters was 46. Today, the median age of Republican voters has increased nine years, to age 52, while the median age of Democratic voters has edged up to 48.
Parties’ educational profiles diverge
Over the past 20 years, the American electorate has become better educated, with the share of college graduates rising. In 1997, 45% of all registered voters had no college experience; today that share has fallen to 33%. And while those with no college experience was the largest category of voters two decades ago, today the electorate is evenly divided – a third each are college graduates, have some college experience but no degree and have no more than a high school diploma.
Despite these shifts, Republican and Republican-leaning voters are no more likely to be college graduates than was the case two decades ago. And college graduates make up a smaller share of GOP voters than they did a decade ago.
Today, 28% of Republican voters have at least a four-year college degree; 35% have some college experience but no degree; and 37% have no college experience.
The educational composition of GOP voters is similar to what it was in 1997. At that time, 28% were at least college graduates; 32% had some college experience; and 40% had no more than a high school education. And in 2007, college graduates made up a greater share of Republican voters than is currently the case (35% of all GOP voters then, 28% now).
The educational makeup of Democratic voters has changed substantially over the past 20 years. Today, about four-in-ten Democrats (39%) have at least a college degree, up from 24% in 1997. And while voters with no more than a high school education constituted the largest share of Democratic voters 20 years ago, today college graduates make up the largest share.
Whites without a college degree remain the largest share of all registered voters, but their numbers have been on the decline due to growing diversity and rising levels of education in the population. In 1997, a majority of all registered voters (61%) were whites without a college degree. Over the past 20 years, that share has fallen to 44%.
The share of whites with at least a college degree has edged up from 22% of registered voters in 1997 to 25% today. Among nonwhites, the share with a college degree or more education has more than doubled, from just 3% in 1997 to 8% in 2017. And nonwhites without a college degree make up a much larger proportion of the electorate today (21%) than 20 years ago (13%).
Combining race and education, Democratic voters are very different today than they were 20 years ago. Today, non-college whites make up a third of all Democratic voters; they constituted a majority of Democrats (56%) in 1997. Since then, the share of white Democrats with at least a four-year degree has increased from 19% to 26%, and the share of nonwhite Democratic college graduates has more than doubled (from 5% to 12%).
Whites who do not have a four-year college degree continue to make up a majority of Republican voters, though a smaller majority than 20 years ago (59% now, 66% then). Whites with at least a four-year degree constitute about a quarter of Republican voters (24%), little changed from 1997 (26%).
Religiously unaffiliated voters make up increasing share of Democrats
The nation’s religious landscape has undergone major changes in recent years, with the share of the population who identify as Christian declining as the number of adults who do not identify with a religion has grown. Religiously unaffiliated voters, who made up just 8% of the electorate two decades ago, now constitute about a quarter (24%) of all registered voters. Over this period, there have been declines in the shares of white mainline Protestants, white evangelical Protestants and white Catholics.
Religiously unaffiliated voters now account for a third of Democratic voters, up from just 9% in 1997. In fact, they make up a larger proportion of Democrats than do white Protestants (33% vs. 18%). In 1997, 40% of Democratic voters identified as white Protestants (evangelical or mainline), while just 9% were religiously unaffiliated. And white Catholics, who made up about one-in-five Democrats then (22%), account for only 10% of Democrats now.
Republicans continue to be mostly made up of white Christians: A third of Republican voters are white evangelical Protestants, which is little changed from 1997 (34%); 17% are white mainline Protestants (28% in 1997); and 17% are white Catholics (20% then).
While religiously unaffiliated voters constitute a much smaller segment of Republican than Democratic voters, the share of Republicans who do not identify with a religious denomination has risen. Currently, 13% of Republicans do not identify with a religion, up from 5% two decades ago.
Chamber’s brand
Why Brand Identity Matters for Chambers
Is a Brand Identity important for Chambers? What exactly is a Brand Identity? Can a Brand Identity be explained? These questions are critical to ask yourself. If you can’t accurately define it, aren’t sure how to explain it, but are pretty sure it might be important, could you even come up with Brand Identity for your organization?
Yes. As a matter of fact, you’re probably further along in the process than you realize. It’s just a matter of analyzing what elements are already in place and what is needed to complement those items.
Maybe you’re saying to yourself, “Oh, we have a brand identity. The Board approved the new logo last year.”
Good, you’re already on your way to making sure you have an established brand.The logo is a critical component. It is the foundation of a brand and gives a visual of your organization’s identity.
But what about the rest? What exactly is brand identity? (Spoiler alert: it’s more than just a logo.)
Branding Basics
Branding gives people a mental impression of your Chamber. It makes your organization both recognizable and memorable. Consider the following quotes:
“Your brand is your promise to your customer. It tells them what they can expect from your products and services, and it differentiates your offering from that of your competitors. Your brand is derived from who you are, who you want to be, and who people perceive you to be." – Small Business Encyclopedia, entrepreneur.com
And
"Branding is the art of aligning what you want people to think about your company with what people actually do think about your company. And vice versa." - Jay Bauer, author of the book Youtility: Why Smart Marketing Is About Help Not Hype
Define Your Brand
Defining your can be as simple or complex as you want to make it. The easiest way is to ask yourself the following questions:
What are the benefits, features, and unique aspects of your Chamber’s products or services?
What do your members and prospective members already think of your Chamber?
What qualities do you want them to associate with your Chamber?
Don’t be intimidated. It’s really not as complicated as it sounds. Be honest in your answers. Authenticity is key in reaching your target market. Your members’ core values and goals should be at the forefront of your effort (for both this exercise and your overall mission, right?).
So, where do you go from here? You’ve successfully defined your brand, the next step is to capture that definition with a brand identity.
Establish Your Brand Identity
A brand identity should communicate your Chamber’s promise, look, attributes, and personality. Yes, even personality. Business may be the name of the game, but don’t forget that businesses are made up of people and people inherently operate on an emotional level.
Your brand stands for what you are. It should represent the sum of all of your marketing efforts.
Creating a brand identity begins with a variety of elements:
Name: the word or words (e.g. Coca-Cola or Coke)
Logo: the visual trademark ( e.g. Quaker Oats Quaker man)
Tagline: a catchphrase or slogan (e.g. “Snap, Crackle, Pop” – Rice Krispies)
Graphics: a clear and effective picture (e.g. Nike swoosh)
Colors: Owens-Corning is the only brand of fiberglass insulation that can be pink.
Sounds: a set of notes denoting a brand. (e.g. McDonald’s I’m Lovin’ It)
Remember, your Chamber’s brand will be frequently communicated in multiple arenas. Consistency is key. Defining brand identity creates the foundation for the rest of your marketing and brand strategy.
There’s a challenge in defining your Chamber’s identity. It’s easy to emulate what others have done, and that’s always a safe bet. It worked for them. But, that’s them. Remember, personality and authenticity are key. You may think your target market is very similar to theirs, and that could be true. But similar is still different. The differences may be subtle, but they are unique. Your Chamber’s brand should be unique, too. Don’t be afraid to forge your own path.
By the Numbers: Chamber Word-of-Mouth Marketing
Word-of-mouth is so powerful because “we trust each other so much more than we trust businesses.” – Jay Baer
WHAT
Word-of-mouth-marketing (WOMM) is defined as: An unpaid form of promotion in which satisfied customers tell other people how much they like a business, product or service and is triggered when a customer (member) experiences something beyond what is expected.
WHY
83% of Americans have recommended a product or service to someone else.
55% of Americans make product or service recommendations to others at least once per month.
48% of Gen Zs have made a recommendation because they’ve heard good things about the product, service, brand, or company from a friend or family member
30% of Gen Zs have made a recommendation because they’ve overheard someone praising the product, service, brand, or company.
Word-of-mouth drives 13% of sales. WHO
On average, 10% of customers drive over 50% of word-of-mouth marketing.
Take extra time for your advocates—anyone who has shown clear affection for your chamber—making sure to add value by bringing them closer to your organization. Ask for their feedback, invite them to do a case study, and make them feel involved (without having to commit their time). WHERE
Word-of-mouth is different than social media. Be careful about confusing the two. WOMM happens everywhere. It encompasses a variety of sub-categories so it can include social media, but overall, it’s about human interaction.
HOW
Do what you said you would do. If you haven’t fulfilled the promises that were made to members, WOMM will turn on you, becoming your greatest foe. Chatter about a negative experience is incredibly damaging.
It has been said that brand perception is half product, half customer experience. For chambers, the product is the experience, so there is no chance to get it half right. It’s all or nothing, so do it all. WHEN
Piggybacking off of a successful event or after positive media coverage are no-brainers for generating buzz. But for any other time, have you simply asked?
You’ve probably asked members to donate and volunteer their time. Have you directly asked members to tell friends about the organization? It probably hadn’t occurred to them that letting people know is helpful. It’s a great option for those that can’t donate or volunteer. Pay attention to all of your members, but go above and beyond for your advocates. It will come back to you unequivocally.
Website Governance for Chambers
You
never get a second chance to make a first impression. And often, the
first impression of your chamber happens when a prospective member
visits your website.
Precisely why you need to know about website governance.
So, what is it? Website governance is a system for managing your online presence in an orderly way. From a chamber's perspective, website governance lays the necessary foundation for your digital presence. Do it well and you get certainty and stability.
Your chamber’s digital presence should be a top priority. Not only for prospects, but for current members as well. If your site operates smoothly and has a consistent look and feel, current members will also embrace it.
Website governance is not the same as website management. Website governance is about putting policies and procedures in place to ensure a consistent look. It helps to maintain your website and provides a high level of organization. However, don’t confuse it with website management. Whereas management focuses on completing a task, governance determines policies and procedures for maintaining and managing the site.
How website governance benefits your chamber.
Governance lays the website foundation and its productivity.
A well-structured site encourages your members to return, and prospects to join.
Chamber employees will have clear guidelines on what is expected.
No matter how little information your site contains, website governance benefits everyone.
Here are the three main areas that work together to increase your success:
Policies – Policies should be clear and consistent and cover privacy, accessibility compliance, rules, laws, social media usage, content review and so on.
Example: When linking to or attaching documents to web pages, they must be in PDF file format.
Standards – Establish standards to guide copywriters and designers as well as ensuring consistency in both voice and design.
Example: Standards are often outlined by a Brand Guideline Manual.
Processes – Clearly state the procedures that ensure any policies and standards are incorporated in any changes to the site.
Example: Outline the process for each blog post to include URL optimization, descriptions, and titles.
Implementing these three pillars of governance will reduce inconsistencies and safeguard the integrity of the site’s voice and visual presence.
How to start: Your chamber probably has some sort of governance system in place without realizing it. But it’s still helpful to start from the beginning, determining the model that works best for your website.
Choose a model based off of any or all of these factors: chamber, goals, culture, and website type.
The most common website governance models are:
Advisory Board
Management Team
Policy Board
Cooperative
Models are usually broken down into two main components.
Resources – Encompasses people, tools, budget and process
Activities – Encompasses development, maintenance, leadership and infrastructure
If one model isn’t a good fit, try another. No matter how you go about it, implementing structure will keep your chamber on the path to success.
A Simple Tactic to Appeal to Prospective Young Members
In an article recently featured in Minnesota Meetings and Events magazine, ChamberMaster’s parent company, GrowthZone, explored benefits that attract young professional members.
This demographic has high expectations for their memberships; with the influx of millennials and Gen Z into the workspace, membership-based organizations must continue to consider their offerings carefully.
Providing benefits that young professionals really want is critical. But more importantly, communicating these benefits is key.
Of all the benefits chambers should promote in order to attract young members, resume building is particularly enticing.
Job opportunity is a primary motivation driving young professionals to seek out chamber membership. The ability to expand their resume by serving in leadership roles or on a committee is compelling.
Complementing resume-building options with professional development programs allows members to participate at a variety of commitment levels. From the smallest engagement (answering questions in an online forum) to major participation (speaking at an event), young professionals can take advantage of numerous professional development and networking opportunities.
By providing young professionals with the tools to become leaders in their industry, chambers validate their value. This, in turn, increases recruitment and retention numbers.
A Chamber Mission Statement: What it is (and isn’t)
Writing
a chamber mission statement isn’t difficult; the key is to make sure
you have a clear understanding of what it is (and isn’t). Keep yours
simple, make it compelling, and ensure it’s measurable and remains
relevant. Mission statements for chambers are essential to planning and can be as short as one sentence, or a brief paragraph.
EXAMPLES:
PayPal: “To build the Web’s most convenient, secure, cost-effective payment solution.”
Trip Advisor: “To help people around the world plan and have the perfect trip.”
Coca-Cola: “To refresh the world in mind, body and spirit. To inspire moments of optimism and happiness through our brands and actions.”
Walt Disney: “To be one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information. Using our portfolio of brands to differentiate our content, services and consumer products, we seek to develop the most creative, innovative and profitable entertainment experiences and related products in the world.”
A mission statement is not the same as a vision statement. Essentially, a Mission Statement defines an organization’s identity (who we are) and purpose (what we do); it’s in the present and doesn’t change. Conversely, a Vision Statement is about promoting growth and setting goals; it’s forward-thinking (where we want to be) and can evolve and change. Practice by taking a run at writing your own, personal mission statement about yourself. It should be unique, clear, and succinct. It’s a quick way to learn and it can be fun. What have you got to lose?
Writing a Press Release for Chambers
The
purpose of a press release is to get attention, make news, and generate
publicity. It’s cost-effective marketing (free) and they can be used to
create brand awareness for your chamber.
The Basics of Crafting a Press Release:
Make it newsworthy; it’s not an ad, it’s a news article
Use an attention-grabbing headline
Be time sensitive – no one wants old news
Stick to one topic
Write it in a professional tone, or even better, write it like you’re a reporter
Proofread it and then have someone else proofread it
Key Components of a Press Release:
Letterhead (identify that it’s from your organization)
Date
“For Immediate Release” under the date
Headline: Limit it to 15 words
Subtitle (optional): Keep it short
Lead paragraph: Your organization’s location (city, state) in bold type and the 5 Ws (who, what, when, why, where) of the story
2nd Paragraph: Supportive information and at least one quote
Other paragraphs: Additional, relevant, non-essential information
Call to Action: An exact, complete, non-embedded URL (not “Click Here to visit website”) in one of the paragraphs
Conclusion: A brief description of your organization
Media Contact Information: Name, email, phone, and website
A Press Release Should Not:
Be longer than 1 page
Have a lot of formatting
Include exclamation points (unless it’s a direct quote)
Exaggerate
Use the words: I, we, our, me
Distribution of a Press Release:
Develop a media contact list of people you will send the release to
Send the release to an actual person, or at least to a specific news department
Use a detailed subject line in your email (not simply “Press Release”)
Post the release on your website
Share the release on social media
Incorporating all of this into your chamber’s press release should result in a well-organized, relevant article that is newsworthy.
How to Sell Chamber of Commerce Memberships
Hate selling memberships? You’re just human.
Whether
it’s membership renewals, event sponsorship, or convincing people to
serve on the board, people in the chamber world are always selling. And
for most people, selling is just plain uncomfortable.
Check out these tactics on how to talk with people about your chamber:
Consider this: If you don’t like to sell, you’re perfect for the job. You just need to stop thinking that sales are bad for the customer.
Chances are you love your chamber, believe in its mission, and you know it’s valuable to members.
Approach sales prospects with the mindset that you are there to partner with them to help solve a problem.
Yes, selling is uncomfortable. But, partnering with someone to help solve a problem is human nature. You don’t have to be a salesperson, you just have to be human.
Is a Brand Identity important for Chambers? What exactly is a Brand Identity? Can a Brand Identity be explained? These questions are critical to ask yourself. If you can’t accurately define it, aren’t sure how to explain it, but are pretty sure it might be important, could you even come up with Brand Identity for your organization?
Yes. As a matter of fact, you’re probably further along in the process than you realize. It’s just a matter of analyzing what elements are already in place and what is needed to complement those items.
Maybe you’re saying to yourself, “Oh, we have a brand identity. The Board approved the new logo last year.”
Good, you’re already on your way to making sure you have an established brand.The logo is a critical component. It is the foundation of a brand and gives a visual of your organization’s identity.
But what about the rest? What exactly is brand identity? (Spoiler alert: it’s more than just a logo.)
Branding Basics
Branding gives people a mental impression of your Chamber. It makes your organization both recognizable and memorable. Consider the following quotes:
“Your brand is your promise to your customer. It tells them what they can expect from your products and services, and it differentiates your offering from that of your competitors. Your brand is derived from who you are, who you want to be, and who people perceive you to be." – Small Business Encyclopedia, entrepreneur.com
And
"Branding is the art of aligning what you want people to think about your company with what people actually do think about your company. And vice versa." - Jay Bauer, author of the book Youtility: Why Smart Marketing Is About Help Not Hype
Define Your Brand
Defining your can be as simple or complex as you want to make it. The easiest way is to ask yourself the following questions:
What are the benefits, features, and unique aspects of your Chamber’s products or services?
What do your members and prospective members already think of your Chamber?
What qualities do you want them to associate with your Chamber?
Don’t be intimidated. It’s really not as complicated as it sounds. Be honest in your answers. Authenticity is key in reaching your target market. Your members’ core values and goals should be at the forefront of your effort (for both this exercise and your overall mission, right?).
So, where do you go from here? You’ve successfully defined your brand, the next step is to capture that definition with a brand identity.
Establish Your Brand Identity
A brand identity should communicate your Chamber’s promise, look, attributes, and personality. Yes, even personality. Business may be the name of the game, but don’t forget that businesses are made up of people and people inherently operate on an emotional level.
Your brand stands for what you are. It should represent the sum of all of your marketing efforts.
Creating a brand identity begins with a variety of elements:
Name: the word or words (e.g. Coca-Cola or Coke)
Logo: the visual trademark ( e.g. Quaker Oats Quaker man)
Tagline: a catchphrase or slogan (e.g. “Snap, Crackle, Pop” – Rice Krispies)
Graphics: a clear and effective picture (e.g. Nike swoosh)
Colors: Owens-Corning is the only brand of fiberglass insulation that can be pink.
Sounds: a set of notes denoting a brand. (e.g. McDonald’s I’m Lovin’ It)
Remember, your Chamber’s brand will be frequently communicated in multiple arenas. Consistency is key. Defining brand identity creates the foundation for the rest of your marketing and brand strategy.
There’s a challenge in defining your Chamber’s identity. It’s easy to emulate what others have done, and that’s always a safe bet. It worked for them. But, that’s them. Remember, personality and authenticity are key. You may think your target market is very similar to theirs, and that could be true. But similar is still different. The differences may be subtle, but they are unique. Your Chamber’s brand should be unique, too. Don’t be afraid to forge your own path.
By the Numbers: Chamber Word-of-Mouth Marketing
Word-of-mouth is so powerful because “we trust each other so much more than we trust businesses.” – Jay Baer WHAT
Word-of-mouth-marketing (WOMM) is defined as: An unpaid form of promotion in which satisfied customers tell other people how much they like a business, product or service and is triggered when a customer (member) experiences something beyond what is expected.
WHY
83% of Americans have recommended a product or service to someone else.
55% of Americans make product or service recommendations to others at least once per month.
48% of Gen Zs have made a recommendation because they’ve heard good things about the product, service, brand, or company from a friend or family member
30% of Gen Zs have made a recommendation because they’ve overheard someone praising the product, service, brand, or company.
Word-of-mouth drives 13% of sales. WHO
On average, 10% of customers drive over 50% of word-of-mouth marketing.
Take extra time for your advocates—anyone who has shown clear affection for your chamber—making sure to add value by bringing them closer to your organization. Ask for their feedback, invite them to do a case study, and make them feel involved (without having to commit their time). WHERE
Word-of-mouth is different than social media. Be careful about confusing the two. WOMM happens everywhere. It encompasses a variety of sub-categories so it can include social media, but overall, it’s about human interaction.
HOW
Do what you said you would do. If you haven’t fulfilled the promises that were made to members, WOMM will turn on you, becoming your greatest foe. Chatter about a negative experience is incredibly damaging.
It has been said that brand perception is half product, half customer experience. For chambers, the product is the experience, so there is no chance to get it half right. It’s all or nothing, so do it all. WHEN
Piggybacking off of a successful event or after positive media coverage are no-brainers for generating buzz. But for any other time, have you simply asked?
You’ve probably asked members to donate and volunteer their time. Have you directly asked members to tell friends about the organization? It probably hadn’t occurred to them that letting people know is helpful. It’s a great option for those that can’t donate or volunteer. Pay attention to all of your members, but go above and beyond for your advocates. It will come back to you unequivocally.
Website Governance for Chambers
You
never get a second chance to make a first impression. And often, the
first impression of your chamber happens when a prospective member
visits your website. Precisely why you need to know about website governance.
So, what is it? Website governance is a system for managing your online presence in an orderly way. From a chamber's perspective, website governance lays the necessary foundation for your digital presence. Do it well and you get certainty and stability.
Your chamber’s digital presence should be a top priority. Not only for prospects, but for current members as well. If your site operates smoothly and has a consistent look and feel, current members will also embrace it.
Website governance is not the same as website management. Website governance is about putting policies and procedures in place to ensure a consistent look. It helps to maintain your website and provides a high level of organization. However, don’t confuse it with website management. Whereas management focuses on completing a task, governance determines policies and procedures for maintaining and managing the site.
How website governance benefits your chamber.
Governance lays the website foundation and its productivity.
A well-structured site encourages your members to return, and prospects to join.
Chamber employees will have clear guidelines on what is expected.
No matter how little information your site contains, website governance benefits everyone.
Here are the three main areas that work together to increase your success:
Policies – Policies should be clear and consistent and cover privacy, accessibility compliance, rules, laws, social media usage, content review and so on.
Example: When linking to or attaching documents to web pages, they must be in PDF file format.
Standards – Establish standards to guide copywriters and designers as well as ensuring consistency in both voice and design.
Example: Standards are often outlined by a Brand Guideline Manual.
Processes – Clearly state the procedures that ensure any policies and standards are incorporated in any changes to the site.
Example: Outline the process for each blog post to include URL optimization, descriptions, and titles.
Implementing these three pillars of governance will reduce inconsistencies and safeguard the integrity of the site’s voice and visual presence.
How to start: Your chamber probably has some sort of governance system in place without realizing it. But it’s still helpful to start from the beginning, determining the model that works best for your website.
Choose a model based off of any or all of these factors: chamber, goals, culture, and website type.
The most common website governance models are:
Advisory Board
Management Team
Policy Board
Cooperative
Models are usually broken down into two main components.
Resources – Encompasses people, tools, budget and process
Activities – Encompasses development, maintenance, leadership and infrastructure
If one model isn’t a good fit, try another. No matter how you go about it, implementing structure will keep your chamber on the path to success.
A Simple Tactic to Appeal to Prospective Young Members
In an article recently featured in Minnesota Meetings and Events magazine, ChamberMaster’s parent company, GrowthZone, explored benefits that attract young professional members. This demographic has high expectations for their memberships; with the influx of millennials and Gen Z into the workspace, membership-based organizations must continue to consider their offerings carefully.
Providing benefits that young professionals really want is critical. But more importantly, communicating these benefits is key.
Of all the benefits chambers should promote in order to attract young members, resume building is particularly enticing.
Job opportunity is a primary motivation driving young professionals to seek out chamber membership. The ability to expand their resume by serving in leadership roles or on a committee is compelling.
Complementing resume-building options with professional development programs allows members to participate at a variety of commitment levels. From the smallest engagement (answering questions in an online forum) to major participation (speaking at an event), young professionals can take advantage of numerous professional development and networking opportunities.
By providing young professionals with the tools to become leaders in their industry, chambers validate their value. This, in turn, increases recruitment and retention numbers.
A Chamber Mission Statement: What it is (and isn’t)
Writing
a chamber mission statement isn’t difficult; the key is to make sure
you have a clear understanding of what it is (and isn’t). Keep yours
simple, make it compelling, and ensure it’s measurable and remains
relevant. Mission statements for chambers are essential to planning and can be as short as one sentence, or a brief paragraph. EXAMPLES:
PayPal: “To build the Web’s most convenient, secure, cost-effective payment solution.”
Trip Advisor: “To help people around the world plan and have the perfect trip.”
Coca-Cola: “To refresh the world in mind, body and spirit. To inspire moments of optimism and happiness through our brands and actions.”
Walt Disney: “To be one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information. Using our portfolio of brands to differentiate our content, services and consumer products, we seek to develop the most creative, innovative and profitable entertainment experiences and related products in the world.”
A mission statement is not the same as a vision statement. Essentially, a Mission Statement defines an organization’s identity (who we are) and purpose (what we do); it’s in the present and doesn’t change. Conversely, a Vision Statement is about promoting growth and setting goals; it’s forward-thinking (where we want to be) and can evolve and change. Practice by taking a run at writing your own, personal mission statement about yourself. It should be unique, clear, and succinct. It’s a quick way to learn and it can be fun. What have you got to lose?
Writing a Press Release for Chambers
The
purpose of a press release is to get attention, make news, and generate
publicity. It’s cost-effective marketing (free) and they can be used to
create brand awareness for your chamber. The Basics of Crafting a Press Release:
Make it newsworthy; it’s not an ad, it’s a news article
Use an attention-grabbing headline
Be time sensitive – no one wants old news
Stick to one topic
Write it in a professional tone, or even better, write it like you’re a reporter
Proofread it and then have someone else proofread it
Key Components of a Press Release:
Letterhead (identify that it’s from your organization)
Date
“For Immediate Release” under the date
Headline: Limit it to 15 words
Subtitle (optional): Keep it short
Lead paragraph: Your organization’s location (city, state) in bold type and the 5 Ws (who, what, when, why, where) of the story
2nd Paragraph: Supportive information and at least one quote
Other paragraphs: Additional, relevant, non-essential information
Call to Action: An exact, complete, non-embedded URL (not “Click Here to visit website”) in one of the paragraphs
Conclusion: A brief description of your organization
Media Contact Information: Name, email, phone, and website
A Press Release Should Not:
Be longer than 1 page
Have a lot of formatting
Include exclamation points (unless it’s a direct quote)
Exaggerate
Use the words: I, we, our, me
Distribution of a Press Release:
Develop a media contact list of people you will send the release to
Send the release to an actual person, or at least to a specific news department
Use a detailed subject line in your email (not simply “Press Release”)
Post the release on your website
Share the release on social media
Incorporating all of this into your chamber’s press release should result in a well-organized, relevant article that is newsworthy.
How to Sell Chamber of Commerce Memberships
Hate selling memberships? You’re just human.
Whether
it’s membership renewals, event sponsorship, or convincing people to
serve on the board, people in the chamber world are always selling. And
for most people, selling is just plain uncomfortable. Check out these tactics on how to talk with people about your chamber:
Consider this: If you don’t like to sell, you’re perfect for the job. You just need to stop thinking that sales are bad for the customer.
Chances are you love your chamber, believe in its mission, and you know it’s valuable to members.
Approach sales prospects with the mindset that you are there to partner with them to help solve a problem.
Yes, selling is uncomfortable. But, partnering with someone to help solve a problem is human nature. You don’t have to be a salesperson, you just have to be human.
Why 2020 Democrats Pretend to Be Radical
You’ll hear fire-breathing promises at the debates, but it’s not the candidates who’ve changed that much. It’s the party.
Here’s one way to follow the action on the Democratic presidential debate stage in Miami over the next two days: Listen to what the candidates say, then squint through the haze to read their unspoken thought bubbles. There’s always tension between what politicians say and what they really believe. But in 2020, that familiar gap has taken on a new twist: Many of these candidates are trying to sound more extreme than they really are.
A quarter-century ago, when I first started covering national politics in Bill Clinton’s Washington, it was common for ambitious Democrats to project themselves as more moderate, more cautious, more incremental—less liberal—than they really were inside.
Listening closely to Al Gore, for instance, it was clear he was a more restless ideologue—more radical by intellect and temperament on the subjects he cared most about—than ever would have been wise for an ambitious politician from a conservative Southern state to advertise.
The enormous, diverse 2020 Democratic field is historic for a lot of reasons, but one big change has gone less remarked. There’s abundant evidence that most of these candidates are projecting themselves as more disruptive, more ambitious, more contemptuous of conventional politics, more liberal, than their previous careers actually suggest.
Judging by the campaign so far, the Democratic debates will be generously salted with bold slogans and ideas: “Medicare for All,” a “Green New Deal,” abolishing the Electoral College or reparations for descendants of slaves. In all but a few cases, these will come from people who have defined their public lives by the more prosaic work of coalition-building and consensus, as congenial senators and tough-minded prosecutors and pro-business mayors—ladder-climbing careerists who got where they are through a shrewd sense of what the political market will bear.
Kamala Harris
The shift in sensibility, from hiding to exaggerating those radical bona fides, shines a light on a more profound change: This cadre of Democrats believes the ideological tides, within the party and the country more broadly, have shifted leftward. And in this environment, with candidates desperate for attention and activist support, it is no longer safe to play it safe.
If this calculation is right, it means the end of several decades in which Democrats won nationally by playing good defense—by reassuring skeptics that there was a difference between being progressive and being left-wing, by running partly by making arguments of who they were (sensible, tough-minded, pro-growth, fiscally responsible) that were really arguments about who they were not (George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson).
The Democratic electorate plainly is clamoring for good offense—no more softening the edges, to hell with patter about civility and common ground—and the competition over two consecutive nights at NBC’s debate state in Miami will be over who can give it to them.
***
Senator Elizabeth Warren was early to enter this derby in March when she told a CNN town hall that she wanted to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College. Good idea, 12 of her rivals have since said, while five more have said it is something to think about (“open to the discussion,” said Senator Kamala Harris).
Pete Buttigieg
Pete Buttigieg, the moderate and highly credentialed mayor of a small Midwestern city, has said he wants to expand the Supreme Court to 15 seats, blowing up a norm that has prevailed since 1869. A bunch of his rivals, like Senator Michael Bennet, have said that goes too far, and some, like former vice president and current front-runner Joe Biden, have left their position unclear. But many others found it advantageous to at least seem like they were on board. “I’m taking nothing off the table,” said Senator Cory Booker, a let’s-take-a-look stance that was echoed by fellow Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Harris and Warren.
It’s fair to presume that the South Bend mayor genuinely does believe—in theory, and all things being equal, in a way that they rarely are in real life—that expanding the High Court by six members to reduce undue conservative influence is a good idea. Those who believe he would really intend to make this the hallmark of a President Pete administration might answer: What episodes in the career of this person who has prospered at every turn within establishment institutions (Harvard, Oxford, McKinsey consulting, the U.S. Navy, and so on) suggest an eagerness or proficiency at championing this kind of battle for truly disruptive change at an institution like the Supreme Court?
It’s also possible that he is practicing the offensive-politics equivalent of when Clinton, playing defensive politics in 1996, endorsed a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, before never mentioning it again after his reelection.
The one candidate on the debate stage—Thursday night, thanks to a random lottery—who can reasonably be presumed to mean what he says even when uttering radical words is Senator Bernie Sanders. He is, after all, a socialist running in the Democratic Party, and he has spent decades waiting for a return to the politics of the 1960s or even the 1930s.
Bernie Sanders
This week, in particular, showed how Sanders is driving the debate and altering the incentives for other candidates. Warren released her plan that called for free college tuition and widespread student debt forgiveness to the tune of $640 billion. An ambitious plan, for sure—until Sanders came out Monday with free tuition and $1.6 trillion to cancel not some but all student debt.
But even Sanders can get caught in the derby of having to project more left in public than he feels when left to his true thoughts in private. In 2016, Sanders said he opposed slavery reparations: “First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive.” This year, he supports Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s bill for a commission to study reparations. Its companion bill in the Senate was introduced by one of the candidates, Cory Booker, and co-sponsored by six others.
***
If you’re looking for evidence of the individual tug of war between candidates’ bold personas and more temperate souls, look no further than the equivocation on the question of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. Thirteen candidates say they support a version of Medicare for All, one of the most popular new policy slogans on the left. But most stop short of Sanders’ definition of the idea, which would eliminate the current health insurance system in favor of a mandatory government-run system. Harris at CNN town hall in January implied that she would eliminate private insurance; four months later she clarified that’s not what she meant.
Amy Klobuchar
Senator Amy Klobuchar is a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal championed by Senator Edward Markey and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and she’s one of 18 presidential candidates to give rhetorical support to the proposal, with its aggressive timelines for carbon reduction and a federal jobs guarantee. But, as she told The Hill, “I see it as aspirational” and when “it got down to the nitty-gritty of actual legislation … that would be different for me.”
Perhaps no one is laboring over how to handle the swing of the ideological pendulum revealed by this year’s race than the person at the top of every poll so far, Biden. He first won election to the U.S. Senate in 1972, a few weeks before he actually reached the minimum age requirement of 30, and when the liberal tide unleashed in the 1960s was strong enough that even a Republican president like Richard Nixon was swept along to support liberal ideas like the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency.
For most of his career, however, the Delaware senator was governing in an environment in which Democrats generally and Biden particularly had to play defense on certain polarizing issues. It was with a reason that Biden opposed court-imposed busing to desegregate schools—he saw first-hand how much resentment it was causing among working-class white families toward Democrats. In 1994, his leadership in passing a tough crime bill was a triumph for both Biden and Clinton—it advertised a Democratic Party that would not accept the bleeding-heart label Republicans had tattooed on so many liberals.
Joe Biden
He presumably did not foresee that decades later he would be playing defensive politics again—this time from activists in his own party, many of whom were not yet born when he came to the Senate, demanding repentance for what now looks like ideological heresy.
In truth, however, Biden’s predicament—like that of all politicians trying to navigate the ideological currents while balancing ambition and prudence—was entirely foreseeable.
The Cycles of American History was a signature work of the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who argued that recurrent and broadly predictable swings of the ideological pendulum are the essence of American politics. Seasons of liberal activism and heightened concern over the public interest are inevitably followed by seasons of conservative retrenchment and elevation of private interests.
Schlesinger, one of the dominant liberal intellectuals of the mid-20th Century, in the late 1940s wrote a book called The Vital Center, but late in life (he died at age 89 in 2007) he often lamented that cautious progressives were confusing the vital center with the dead center—espousing a middle-of-the-road incrementalism that didn’t offend, but also didn’t inspire.
He would likely note the irony that it was a radical president in Donald Trump who served as catalyst for another liberal swing of the pendulum. And he’d approve of the willingness of the current cadre of Democrats on stage to go on offense and take ideological risks.
This is the path, Schlesinger argued, walked by consequential presidents from Lincoln to the Roosevelts and—though he disapproved of the agenda—on to Ronald Reagan.
“Great presidents are unifiers mostly in retrospect,” Schlesinger told me in 1997, as Bill Clinton was preparing for a second term by promising to bridge partisan divides and unify the country. “The greatest presidents have started by dividing the country on important questions, as a way of uniting the country at a new level of understanding.”
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)