logo
When it comes to vacations, Democrats and Republicans think remarkably alike

When it comes to vacations, Democrats and Republicans think remarkably alike

The Hill23-05-2025
Democrats and Republicans don't just disagree on policy — they increasingly diverge in how they live their daily lives. From the places they eat and the cars they drive to the television networks they watch and even the names they give their children, lifestyle choices are often split along partisan lines. These differences reflect a broader and more troubling trend: political polarization is shaping not just the outcomes of our elections, but the fabric of American culture.
With the unofficial start of summer upon us, it is worth asking: Has polarization also seeped into something as apolitical as summer vacation?
To find out, the Institute of Politics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, where we serve as director and associate director, surveyed 1,123 American adults in early May using the AmeriSpeak Panel.
For starters, partisans largely agree on a basic vacation question: how many consecutive days off work count as a 'real' vacation? Nearly half (47 percent) say it takes six or more consecutive days off work. About a third say four to five days is enough, and 12 percent say even one to three days qualifies.
More than half of Americans (55 percent) plan to take a vacation this summer, defined in the survey as at least two nights away from home. There is a modest partisan gap: 61 percent of Republicans compared to 54 percent of Democrats say they plan to travel. But when it comes to how they plan to spend that time off, Democrats and Republicans are remarkably similar.
Equal shares of both groups are planning beach trips or road trips, the two most popular vacation types in our survey. Romantic getaways and family-friendly excursions show no meaningful partisan divide either. Of course, the survey doesn't capture specific destinations — a beach vacation might mean Palm Beach for some, while Rehoboth is for others, i.e., same category, but they have very different vibes.
One area where political preferences do seem to matter is urban tourism. Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to say they plan to visit a city and explore its attractions. Democrats are also slightly more likely than Republicans to choose vacations focused on outdoor recreation, like hiking or camping.
What about the 45 percent of Americans not planning a summer getaway? Democrats and Republicans give similar reasons: cost, work obligations, family responsibilities, or a preference for traveling at other times of year. One notable difference is that Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to say they 'don't like to take vacations.'
Getting there matters, too, and most Americans feel safest behind the wheel. About 80 percent say they feel 'mostly' or 'completely' safe driving a personal vehicle, more than 20 points higher than the perceived safety of planes, trains or buses. There are no major partisan differences in how Americans view car, train or bus travel. But air travel tells a different story.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans say flying is mostly or completely safe. That includes 64 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Democrats. This gap persists even after controlling for demographics (race, gender, income and education) and geographic region.
What explains the difference?
Americans tend to trust the government more when their own party controls the presidency. That dynamic appears to be at work here. Republicans express more confidence in the current administration and its Cabinet officials, whereas Democrats are more skeptical. That skepticism appears to extend to how safe it feels to board a plane.
To be sure, recent tragedies and problems, like the fatal mid-air collision near Reagan Washington National Airport and the ongoing air traffic control issues at Newark Liberty International Airport, further exacerbate the issue. The heavily partisan messaging among elites and Americans' growing preference for media that reinforces their views rather than challenges them, over who is to blame for these problems, almost certainly contributes to the partisan divergence in safety perceptions.
We were curious to know whether polarization had turned summer vacation into another partisan affair. The good news is that, despite a few differences, Democrats and Republicans still have common ground on the seasonal respite from the pressures of work and life.
But the societal and political problems associated with lifestyle sorting are nonetheless persistent and very real. And when our political identities become indistinguishable from our lifestyle preferences, the opportunities for meaningful interaction across the aisle shrink. That deepens cultural and affective polarization, reinforcing the divide that defines American politics today.
And let's face it: a partisan silo is a terrible vacation destination.
Mileah Kromer is an associate professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and the director of the UMBC Institute of Politics, which conducts the UMBC Poll. She is the author of 'Blue State Republican: How Larry Hogan Won Where Republicans Lose and Lessons for a Future GOP.' Ian Anson is an associate professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and the associate director of the UMBC Institute of Politics. He is the author of 'Following the Ticker: The Political Origins and Consequences of Stock Market Perceptions.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Analysis: How much do Republicans care about the Epstein files? More than it might seem.
Analysis: How much do Republicans care about the Epstein files? More than it might seem.

CNN

time4 minutes ago

  • CNN

Analysis: How much do Republicans care about the Epstein files? More than it might seem.

One of the biggest questions looming over President Donald Trump's second term right now is how much his supporters truly care about the Jeffrey Epstein files. The distinction between caring a lot vs. a little is critical. The former could mean a sustained problem for the president that bleeds into the midterm elections and affects turnout among his typically loyal base. The latter would mean this is likely nothing more than an ugly episode that ultimately fades away. So, now that we've had a chunk of time since the Justice Department released their controversial Epstein memo, how much do Republicans care about all this? A bevy of new polls show they're unhappy with how the Trump administration has handled this scandal and suggest it could be a persistent problem for the GOP. The base is about evenly split on the administration's actions, meaning there's a higher degree of skepticism than we almost ever see with Trump. And that might actually undersell the level of lingering GOP concern. Multiple polls show widespread dissatisfaction overall with the Trump administration's handling of the matter. Both Reuters-Ipsos and Quinnipiac University polling showed Americans overall disapproved of how the Trump team has handled this by huge margins: 54-17% in the former and 63-17% in the latter. (The former poll's question was about Trump personally, while the latter was about the administration more broadly.) So that's just 17% of Americans who said Trump and the administration have gotten this right, in both polls. The vast majority in that group are, of course, Republicans. But delving into the GOP-specific takeaways, the party is about evenly split — which is unusual on the Trump administration's actions. They leaned slightly towards approving the handling of the Epstein probe, 35-29% in the Reuters-Ipsos poll and 40-36% in the Quinnipiac poll. It's difficult to recall an issue on which Republicans were so lukewarm about major Trump actions. For instance, even shortly after the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, an event that led many to conclude that Trump's political career was over, a CNN poll showed Republicans approved of Trump's response by a strong margin: 63-32%. Being disenchanted isn't the same as ditching someone politically, however. Precisely how much people actually care is a critical point. There's some evidence that Republicans are downplaying the significance of this. A new CBS News-YouGov poll released Sunday, for instance, showed just 11% of Republicans said Epstein-related issues matter 'a lot' in their evaluation of Trump's presidency. That's compared to 36% of overall voters who said that. To the extent that's true, it would seem this is something Trump could move past. But polling has a persistent weakness: Respondents aren't always totally honest with themselves or pollsters. For instance, ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, the conventional wisdom was that Democrats' focus on democracy after the January 6 attack wasn't panning out and that the issue might even spur GOP turnout. The results ultimately showed that the issue was a significant benefit to Democrats, and election-denying Republicans did significantly worse than other Republicans. On Epstein, the CBS-YouGov poll suggests there are gaps between how much people say they care about the issue vs. what their other feelings or behavior reveals. While it showed 50% of Republicans said they were at least somewhat satisfied with the administration's Epstein actions, 83% of polled Republicans said the Justice Department should release all the information it has on Epstein — something the Trump administration has decidedly not done. (The administration late last week moved in court to unseal grand jury testimony. But that's only a small portion of the information, and much of it could remain secret.) The same poll also showed 90% of Republicans believed the Epstein files probably includes damaging information about wealthy or powerful people. Similarly, the Reuters-Ipsos poll showed Republicans said 55-17% that they believed the federal government is hiding information about Epstein's death, and 62-11% that it is hiding information about his clients. Those responses suggest Republicans aren't happy with the administration's meager disclosures, even if they're not looking to register that dissatisfaction when explicitly asked. The polling also reveals that even many of those who stand by Trump aren't doing so with a high degree of confidence. While the Reuters-Ipsos poll showed Republicans were about split on Trump's actions; only 11% 'strongly' approved of Trump's actions. And while half of Republicans in the CBS-YouGov poll said they were at least somewhat satisfied with the Trump administration's actions, just 10% were 'very' satisfied. That's only about 1 in 10 Republicans who look at this and say they completely sign off. The CBS-YouGov poll also showed MAGA Republicans were more likely to lean towards being satisfied (60% were at least 'somewhat' satisfied) than non-MAGA Republicans (41%). So are MAGA Republicans — the ones who have vociferously called for releasing more information on Epstein — more satisfied than their non-MAGA breathren? Or are they just feeling compelled to toe the Trump party line, at least somewhat? Regardless, those numbers don't mean this won't be a problem with a significant section of Trump's base. Those voters could sour on him, at least somewhat, perhaps in combination with other recent Trump actions they don't love, like on the war in Ukraine. A Wall Street Journal report last week on a letter Trump allegedly wrote for Epstein's 50th birthday back in 2003 appeared to unite even many Epstein-focused influencers behind Trump and against the media, their frequent common enemy. Trump denied he wrote the letter and has sued the Journal; his base seems to largely believe he's being railroaded. But that doesn't mean they're satisfied overall and ready to let the issue go. The data suggest that, for now, this remains a minefield for Trump.

Found! A U.S. government service that really works
Found! A U.S. government service that really works

Los Angeles Times

time5 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Found! A U.S. government service that really works

In these days when it seems like the current administration couldn't organize a utensil drawer, what with a military parade witnessed by empty bleachers and immigrant dragnets snaring American citizens and such, it seems like it would be a shock to find a government function that, you know, actually works. I found it. On June 14, I applied to renew my passport, bracing for months of frustration with bureaucratic apathy and torpor. The State Department website that took my application warned that the turnaround time was four to six weeks, which I figured would be the minimum wait. Yet I received my new passport by mail on June 28, or a crisp 14 days later. If you can think of another government service that can perform its task in two weeks from application to consummation, let me know. This was nothing like the old system, which Ben Cohen of the Wall Street Journal described as: 'Fill out a paper form. Attach a check or money order. Get photos printed — and hope they don't get rejected. Then schlep to the post office, mail back the old passport and wait too long for a new one.' The State Department launched its online passport renewal portal last September, after years of seeking a solution to a tsunami of passport applications. One pilot project went disastrously awry — increasing the time needed to process the paperwork. Eventually all the glitches were ironed out, and the result has been a spectacular success. In terms of customer service, it certainly ranks as one of the triumphs of the Biden administration. Leading the hundreds of workers who implemented the scheme were Luis Coronado, chief information officer for the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, and Matthew Pierce, then the managing director for passport services. Their accomplishment earned them Service to America medals from the Partnership for Public Service, which honor 'outstanding public servants who improve our lives.' Said Robert Thomas, principal deputy assistant secretary of consular affairs at State, in the award certification, 'Luis and Matt led the transformation of a seriously outdated government service into a leading government service that's oriented around the customer.' They did more than that. They struck a blow on behalf of all the public servants who remain invisible and unappreciated when they do their jobs right, but get held up to public vituperation when something goes wrong on their watch. Ministerial functions like car registration and Medicare enrollment and, sure, passport issuance always take the brunt of grousing about the government being so ineffectual. The public has been groomed to think that when you've fallen among government bureaucrats you're hopelessly trapped in an infinite loop. This notion was retailed by Ronald Reagan, with his quip about 'the nine most terrifying words in the English language: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'' Particularly baroque screw-ups generally make it into the media, but for the most part these things don't get screwed up. For the record: I've also had trouble-free experience with the California DMV, even on the one occasion when I had to go in person to get my Real ID. And when I'm due a tax refund, it gets paid. The public image persists of government offices being filled with drones sitting with their foreheads on their desks. Accordingly, on the subreddit where people have been posting their passport renewal timelines — 14 days, 10 days or even less, the tone of the threads is a sort of delighted stupefaction, like someone suddenly blessed with a great stroke of luck. 'This must seriously be the most efficiently run government office that exists,' wrote one Redditor who submitted her application on July 10 and had her passport in hand on July 16. That was my reaction, too. For me the process began on June 10, when I received an email advising that my passport would expire in less than one year and therefore I was eligible for online renewal to obtain a new passport with the customary 10-year term. 'Act Now — Renew your U.S. Passport!' was the subject line, prompting me to check to make sure the message wasn't spam. But it had been sent from a address. After tracking down my passport and determining that State had the expiration date just right, I checked the eligibility requirements for the online service — older than 25; not planning to change my name, sex, date of birth, or place of birth; not planning to travel within six weeks (the moment a renewal application is submitted, the old passport is invalidated); and have a credit or debit card to pay the fee ($130 for the passport, another $30 for a wallet-sized ID card). Then it was on to the nearest CVS for a digital photo, which I submitted online with the application. I received an instant acknowledgment, and emails when my credit card was successfully charged, which started the approval process; when my application was approved; and when the passport was shipped by U.S. Mail, tracking number included. Delivery even came a couple of days earlier than State's initial projection. Passports that have expired within the last five years can also be renewed online. First-time applicants or those with long-expired passports have to do things the old way, filling out paper forms and dropping them off, along with photos and proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, at an official site like a post office or city hall. Some people may be tempted to see online renewal as just another service tailor-made for the upper crust, because who else needs a passport for foreign travel? The truth is that about 56% of adult Americans hold passports — 170 million are in circulation, according to the American Communities Project at Michigan State University. Demand is demographically and culturally diverse. Within Latino communities, the figure is 53%. That's 'higher than one might imagine ... considering their lower incomes and college degrees and often their more rural nature,' reported Dante Chinni, the project director. But those communities also have 'large populations that have reason to travel — newer immigrants who have family and friends back in their home countries,' Chinni wrote in March. 'While international travel is a luxury in some community types, in the Hispanic Centers it is more likely to be seen as part of life.' The passport bureau has been processing as many as 25 million applications a year, up from 3 million annually in the 1970s. Under that onslaught, the consular bureau says, 'applicants were facing months-long waits to get their passports. It was clear the system could not keep up.' Given the success of the online renewal system, it's only natural to ask: What could go wrong? The consular affairs bureau doesn't seem to have been hit hard by DOGEism at State, or at least not as notably as programs such as USAID. That almost feels lucky, given the obvious nexus between passport issuance and immigration and citizenship, two issues with which the Trump White House is obsessed. Notwithstanding the success of Coronado and Pierce at modernizing the passport system's technology, the process is still very much human-powered: More than 1,200 passport specialists are charged with reviewing applications. That's a decline of about 15% over the last couple of years. Their union representatives say the bureau is understaffed, and things are only going to get worse as the bureau experiences a years-long trend of increased caseloads. For now, however, this is a service that really works. I haven't seen any public complaint about an online renewal application getting swallowed up in the gears; thus far, every public comment I've seen for the service is praise. Let's hope that it lasts, and that the determined effort that brought it about can work the same magic on less efficient corners of the government. Don't we owe that to ourselves?

Bernanke, Yellen: Trump's Fed pressure could fuel inflation
Bernanke, Yellen: Trump's Fed pressure could fuel inflation

The Hill

time5 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Bernanke, Yellen: Trump's Fed pressure could fuel inflation

Former Federal Reserve Chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen condemned President Trump's pressure campaign against its current chief, Jerome Powell, warning it could permanently damage the U.S. economy. In a Monday op-ed in The New York Times, the former Fed leaders urged Trump to respect the independence of the central bank and choose a replacement for Powell who would do the same. 'President Trump, like all Americans, is entitled to express his views on monetary policy. He will have a chance to put his stamp on the Federal Reserve by nominating someone to succeed Mr. Powell when his term ends next spring,' Bernanke and Yellen wrote. 'In the interest of the U.S. economy, we urge that he select an individual who will keep an appropriate distance between the Fed and short-term politics, someone who is committed to preserving the Fed's independence in monetary policy decision making.' Powell has less than a year left in his second term as Fed chair, which is set to end in May, and Trump has been eager to show him the door. While the president has waffled on whether to fire Powell — which would be a legally dubious and financially risky move — Trump is almost certain to nominate a replacement who will be loyal to his agenda. Trump has berated Powell for months for refusing to slash interest rates — something the Fed chair cannot do unilaterally — as the U.S. government faces steep borrowing costs on the soaring national debt. The president has urged the Fed to cut rates by amounts only seen during economic crises, even with unemployment close to record lows. While some Fed officials have expressed support for mild rate cuts, not a single member of the central bank supports cutting rates to the levels Trump has suggested. Few, if any economists outside the administration have supported Trump's call for stimulative interest rates as well. Bernanke and Yellen said that regardless of Trump's support for 'a radical reduction in interest rates,' he must allow the Fed to make its own decisions based on data, not political pressure, or risk serious consequences. The former Fed chairs pointed specifically to previous instances in which the Fed and other central banks adjusted interest rates to help fiscal authorities manage the national debt, which allowed inflation to spiral out of control. 'If investors and the public see that monetary policy is being used to facilitate government borrowing, they lose confidence that inflation will stay low. As a result, regular savers and investors in U.S. debt demand higher interest rates to compensate for the likely erosion of their capital,' they wrote. 'Ironically, forcing monetary policy to help finance deficits actually drives up borrowing costs for everyone, including home buyers and businesses, as well as the government.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store