About two-thirds (64%) of Americans offer positive evaluations of the quality of candidates who have run for Congress in their district in recent years. But younger adults were less likely than older Americans – and partisans were more likely than independents – to say this, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted earlier this year.
Overall, Republicans and Democrats were about equally likely to say their district’s past congressional candidate pool has been good, but there were substantial differences in these views between those who identify with the parties and those who lean toward a party. While 74% of Democrats said recent candidate pools were of high quality, just 48% of Democratic-leaning independents said the same, with a similar gap between the views of Republicans and GOP leaners.
There was also a substantial age gap in these views: Just 45% of adults younger than 30 said the quality of congressional candidates in their district’s last several elections was good. By contrast, more than six-in-ten of those in older age groups said this, including about three-quarters of those 65 and older (77%). Younger people also tended to offer more negative evaluations of past candidate pools for other levels of office. (The age gap is partly the result of younger people being less likely to identify as partisans, but a gap remains even when that is taken into account.)
In addition, how people view the quality of the candidate pool for Congress in their district is related to the partisan composition of the district. Partisans living in districts that are dominated by their own party have more positive evaluations of the recent pools of congressional candidates than those living in districts dominated by the other party.
For instance, 78% of Republicans and Republican leaners living in districts that Republican candidates for Congress won by wide margins in 2016 said the quality of those who ran for Congress in the last several elections was very or somewhat good, compared with 53% of Democrats in these districts. Similarly, while 71% of Democrats and Democratic leaners in safe Democratic districts said candidate quality in their district had generally been good, that compares with just 50% of Republicans and Republican leaners in these districts.
There are modest partisan differences among those who live in districts where the winner of the congressional seat won with less than 60% of the two-party vote in 2016 – 73% of Republicans and Republican leaners in these districts said the quality of candidates has been good, while somewhat fewer Democrats in these districts (64%) said the same.
Race & EthnicityElection 2012Politics & MediaGeorge W. BushGenerations, Age & PoliticsHealth CareBilateral RelationsHigh-Skilled ImmigrationHispanics/Latinos & EducationReligious Leaders & InstitutionsHistorically Black ProtestantismSilent GenerationLGBTQ Attitudes & ExperiencesBusiness & WorkplaceGlobal TradeHuman EnhancementNet NeutralityEmerging TechnologySmartphonesFreedom of the PressState of the News Media (Project)Personal LifeUnauthorized ImmigrationInternational Political ValuesGlobal HealthCOVID-19 in the NewsTestGenerations & AgeElection 2010Political Ideals & SystemsBarack ObamaGender & PoliticsMigration IssuesInternational IssuesVisas & EmploymentHispanics/Latinos & IncomeReligion & GovernmentMormonismGreatest GenerationGender IdentityEconomic PolicyRemittancesMedicine & HealthOnline Harassment & BullyingFuture of the Internet (Project)AppsNews KnowledgeTelevisionPublic KnowledgeImmigration TrendsOnline Random Sample SurveysRecessions & RecoveriesSurvey BasicsPartisanship & IssuesGender & LGBTQElection 2008DemocracyGovernmentEducation & PoliticsLGBTQ AcceptanceEnvironment & ClimateRemittancesHispanic/Latino IdentityReligion & PoliticsJudaismComparison of GenerationsSame-Sex MarriageEconomic SystemsStudent LoansSpaceMisinformation OnlineArtificial IntelligenceTextingMedia IndustryNewspapersOccupational GroupsCOVID-19 & PoliticsScientists' ViewsGovernment Spending & the DeficitResearch ExplainersPolitical PolarizationFamily & RelationshipsElections Before 2008AuthoritarianismTrust in GovernmentIssue PrioritiesNational ConditionsGlobal Economy & TradeRacial Bias & DiscriminationHispanic/Latino VotersInternational Religious Freedom & RestrictionsIslamAgeHousehold Structure & Family RolesPersonal FinancesRetirementVaccinesTech CompaniesAlgorithmsVideoNews Platforms & SourcesAudio, Radio & PodcastsMilitary & VeteransAtheism & AgnosticismJournalistsUnemploymentInstagramU.S. DemocracyEconomy & WorkVoters & VotingCapitalismSupreme CourtAbortionPrivacy RightsInternational TerrorismSegregationWhitesReligious DemographicsMuslim AmericansTeens & YouthFamily CaregivingIncome & WagesBirth Rate & FertilityClimate ChangeOnline ActivismAutomationGamingDigital News LandscapeNews Audience DemographicsPoliceJoe BidenPoliceReligion & BioethicsEvolutionPolitical PartiesScienceVoter DemographicsSocialismCongressDeath PenaltyCriminal JusticeNuclear WeaponsRace RelationsMore Racial & Ethnic GroupsGlobal Religious DemographicsMuslims Around the WorldOlder Adults & AgingMarriage & DivorceEconomic InequalityGenderEnergyCivic Activities OnlineBotsMusicLocal NewsSocial Media & the NewsJournalistsImmigrant PopulationsWar & International ConflictYouTubeSize & Demographic Characteristics of Religious GroupsInternet & TechnologyVoter ParticipationCommunismFederal GovernmentDefense & National SecurityDisasters & AccidentsInternational TechnologyRacial & Ethnic IdentityReligious Identity & AffiliationReligion & ScienceBuddhismComparison of Age GroupsDivorcePovertyTrust in ScienceEnvironmentOnline DatingGig & Sharing EconomiesOnline SearchNews CoverageData ScienceHappiness & Life SatisfactionBorder Security & EnforcementGlobal Tech & CybersecurityHuman RightsReligious Characteristics of Demographic GroupsNews Habits & MediaElection System & Voting ProcessPopulismMilitary & VeteransTerrorismReligion & GovernmentImmigration AttitudesRacial & Ethnic ShiftsBeliefs & PracticesKnowledge & EducationHinduismGender & PoliticsIntermarriageWealthScience News & InformationTechnology AdoptionSocial Relations & TechInternet of ThingsE-CommerceNews Content AnalysisDemographic ResearchTime UseTechnology & ImmigrationRace, Ethnicity & PoliticsGlobal Balance of PowerNATOMethodological ResearchElection NewsNationalismNon-U.S. GovernmentsWar & International ConflictSocial Security & MedicareImmigration IssuesRacial IntermarriageInterreligious RelationsReligionsOther ReligionsEconomics, Work & GenderSame-Sex MarriageHomeownership & RentingSTEM Education & WorkforceDigital DivideStresses & Distraction OnlinePlatforms & ServicesEmailMedia PolarizationAmerican Trends PanelLifestyleGender & ReligionReligious ExtremismReligion & PoliticsUnited NationsOther TopicsWorld ElectionsPresidential ApprovalState & Local GovernmentNuclear WeaponsWorld LeadersIntegration & IdentityRace, Ethnicity & PoliticsReligion & Social ValuesChristianityReligiously UnaffiliatedGender Pay GapUnmarried AdultsMiddle ClassReligion & ScienceTechnology Policy IssuesUser DemographicsInternet ConnectivityBlogsElection NewsInternational Survey MethodsDeath & DyingYounger AdultsU.S. Religious DemographicsCoronavirus Disease (COVID-19)COVID-19 & TechnologyPolitical IssuesPolitical Parties & PolarizationDonald TrumpReligion & GovernmentMilitary & VeteransWorld ElectionsImmigration & Language AdoptionRacial & Ethnic GroupsReligion & AbortionCatholicismComparison of ReligionsGender & LeadershipParenthoodFuture of WorkScience Funding & PolicyPolitics OnlineTeens & TechSocial MediaE-ReadingPresidents & PressSurvey MethodsK-12TaxesCOVID-19 & ScienceCyberattacksRural, Urban and Suburban CommunitiesU.S. Elections & VotersPolitical PartiesAngela MerkelProtests & UprisingsDiscrimination & PrejudiceGlobal Image of CountriesCitizenshipBlack AmericansBiotechOrthodox ChristianityGenerationsEducation & GenderFertilityEmployee BenefitsScience IssuesDigital News LandscapeChildren & TechMobileMedia & SocietyTrust, Facts & DemocracyTelephone SurveysHigher EducationAge, Generations & TechReligious TypologyOnline SurveysUnionsReligionElection 2020Political PolarizationNarendra ModiParty IdentificationDrug PolicyU.S. Global ImageFamily ReunificationAsian AmericansReligion & Death PenaltyProtestantismGeneration ZGender RolesRomance & DatingUnemploymentScience KnowledgeLifestyle & Relationships OnlineOlder Adults & TechEntertainmentNews Media TrendsTrust in MediaNonprobability SurveysStudent LoansBroadbandReligious CommitmentU.S. CensusPew Templeton Global Religious Futures ProjectPolitics & PolicyElection 2018Political TypologyVladimir PutinPolitical AnimosityFree Speech & PressChina Global ImageLegal ImmigrationHispanics/LatinosReligion & LGBTQ AcceptanceEvangelicalismMillennialsMotherhood & FatherhoodFriendshipsGender & WorkGene EditingEducation & Learning OnlineRacial & Ethnic Groups OnlineMore Platforms & ServicesPolitics & MediaFacts & Fact CheckingVoter FilesElection 2004Media Layoffs & EmploymentPope FrancisEducation & Learning OnlineElection 2022International AffairsElection 2016Political DiscourseMore LeadersLeadersGun PolicyOrganizations, Alliances & TreatiesRefugees & Asylum SeekersHispanic/Latino DemographicsReligious Freedom & RestrictionsPentecostalismGeneration XGender Equality & DiscriminationEconomic ConditionsGig & Sharing EconomiesClimate, Energy & EnvironmentHealthcare OnlineRural Residents & TechFacebookMedia AttitudesBots & MisinformationEducationElection 2006Religious Knowledge & EducationPope Benedict XVILeisureIsrael Global ImageImmigration & MigrationElection 2014Political & Civic EngagementBill ClintonDemographics & PoliticsHealth PolicyEuropean UnionImmigration & EconomyHispanics/Latinos & LanguageNon-Religion & SecularismMainline ProtestantismBaby BoomersSexual Misconduct & HarassmentIncome, Wealth & PovertyGovernment Spending & the DeficitFood ScienceOnline Privacy & SecurityGender & TechTwitterMisinformationAmerican News Pathways 2020 ProjectLibrariesElection 2002Educational AttainmentPope John Paul IICOVID-19 & the EconomyQualitative Research
Jocelyn Kiley is an associate director of research at Pew Research Center.