America's New Majority Project

“Gestating Parent”: What Americans Think About New York’s Family-Law Language Change

America's New Majority Project — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:02:57 GMT

Half the country had never heard of this law before being surveyed 51% said they had no idea it existed. That makes these results a clean measure of first reaction, and the first reaction is broad-based opposition that spans party, age, race, and income.

Key Takeaways

68% of voters oppose the change, including 52% who strongly oppose. Strong opposition alone is nearly three times total support (18%).
75% say state law should keep “mother” and “father” because the words are widely used and commonly understood; only 14% prefer gender-neutral legal terms.
The public sees this as a question of legislative priorities as much as language. 76% of voters, including 70% of Democrats, say lawmakers should be spending their time on other issues.
DOWNLOAD REPORT

Why It Matters

Legal language shapes how families are described in official documents, court records, and public forms. This survey shows a wide gap between the words lawmakers chose and the words the public actually uses. 75% of respondents — across every major demographic and party — want to keep “mother” and “father.” That means this change never had real public support behind it.

That gap has political costs. When officials adopt language most voters don’t use, it tells those voters their leaders don’t know them or share their values. Issues like this don’t stay quiet — they become wedge issues, forcing officials to choose between the advocacy groups who pushed the change and the much larger, cross-partisan majority who wanted things left alone. That’s a tough spot for anyone facing reelection.

How To Use This Data

Lead with the priorities finding. The single most lopsided result in the survey is that 76% of voters, including 70% of Democrats and 80% of independents, say lawmakers should spend their time on other issues. This framing allows people who may differ on questions of gender and language to find common ground on how legislative time should be spent. The intensity numbers 52% strongly opposed — demonstrate that this is a deeply held view, not a soft one, which is useful context when presenting the findings to officials, media, or community groups.

Share America's New Majority Project

Voters Reject the Change Itself

68% oppose replacing “mother” and “father” with “gestating parent” and “non-gestating parent,” versus 18% who support it. 52% strongly oppose — nearly three times all support combined.
Opposition rises with age: 62% of voters 18–29, 66% of those 30–44, 71% of those 45–64, and 87% of seniors — 72% of whom strongly oppose.
Opposition crosses party lines: a majority of Democrats (55%) oppose the change, against 23% who support it. Independents oppose it 74–12.

Voters Reject the Premise

75% say state laws should keep “mother” and “father” because they are widely used and commonly understood; 14% prefer neutral terms. Even 58% of voters under 30 and 61% of Democrats choose the traditional terms.
Presented with both sides’ best arguments — inclusivity versus meaning — 65% say the new terms are too clinical and diminish the meaning of words like “mom” and “dad,” including 46% who feel that strongly. 23% find them more inclusive and appropriate.

The view is broad, not narrowly partisan: 65% of Black voters and 73% of Hispanic voters choose keeping “mother” and “father.”

The Priorities Question

76% say lawmakers should spend their time on other issues; only 16% call this a reasonable use of legislative time.
That view is nearly unanimous across groups: 70% of Democrats, 80% of independents, 79% of women, and 92% of seniors say legislators should focus elsewhere.

Notably, this judgment requires no position on gender or language at all — it reflects a shared public view about what legislatures should prioritize.

Public Accountability

55% of voters view a politician who supports the change less favorably (37% much less favorably); 17% view such a politician more favorably.
Among independents, 65% view supporters of the change less favorably; among women, 59%. Even among Democrats, more voters react negatively (33%) than positively (25%), with 43% saying it makes no difference.
These findings indicate that public officials’ positions on legal family-law language are obvious to constituents and factor into how those officials are evaluated.

The Bottom Line

New York adopted a change to family-law terminology that most Americans had never heard of, that three-quarters believe should not have been a legislative priority, and that a majority strongly oppose on the merits. The data show a durable, cross-demographic public consensus in favor of retaining “mother” and “father” in state law. For advocates, researchers, and policymakers, these findings offer a clear picture of public opinion to inform debate over similar proposals in other states.

AlphaROC conducted a national survey for Gingrich 360, among 1454 registered voters on June 27th to June 28th, 2026. The sample of 1454 registered voters carries a margin of error of ±2.6% at the 95% confidence level.

What’s Next

We will have more analysis on recent polling on whats next for America’s healthcare system..

We want to hear from you! We not only enjoy hearing from our subscribers, but we also use your feedback to bring you the most recent and engaging policy information available. Share how you’re using this data or tell us what new insights you’d like to see.

Get in touch with us anytime, and let’s make an impact together!

Leave a comment

IIn Case You Missed It

Subscribe now

America's Enduring Pride: What the Data Tells Us

America's New Majority Project — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:03:40 GMT

Subscribe now

The numbers show a surprising steadiness. From June 2024 to May 2026, agreement on key patriotic themes hardly budged, shifting by less than three points across almost all indicators. Pride in the Founders’ achievements increased slightly. Support for celebrating Independence Day as a shared national occasion stayed strong, at 86%, representing nearly universal agreement. Even the most debated topic—whether the Founders should be honored despite their legacy of slavery—remains firmly supported at 75%. These aren’t just fleeting opinions; they are deeply rooted feelings, and the data makes that clear.

What the Numbers Show:

80% of Americans are proud to be American — a supermajority, sustained across two years of turbulent politics
86% believe Independence Day should be celebrated by all — the most stable reading in the dataset, down just 1.5 points since 2024
81% express pride in the Founders’ achievements, shifting less than 2 points over two years
75% believe the Founders should be honored despite the legacy of slavery — a durable consensus on a genuinely contested question
88% intend to celebrate the Fourth of July — enthusiasm for the holiday has not faded
84% are already aware of the 250th Anniversary, one of the highest awareness readings the project has recorded
82% say the principles of the Declaration of Independence remain relevant today
76% believe honoring the Founders helps unify the country across diverse backgrounds
73% feel optimistic about America’s future when considering its history

The Bottom Line:

In an era defined by division, the data from America’s New Majority Project tells a story that often goes untold: Americans are more united on their national identity than the loudest voices in politics suggest. Supermajorities, not slim majorities, but overwhelming ones hold firm on pride, on the Founders, on the Declaration, and on July 4th itself. As the nation prepares to mark 250 years, that foundation is stronger than the headlines suggest. The 250th anniversary does not arrive into a fractured vacuum: it arrives into a country that, by every measure this project tracks, is ready to celebrate and proud to do so.

“Completely Crazy”: The Voters Who Feel Strongly Enough to Act

America's New Majority Project — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 15:31:41 GMT

There’s a difference between “I think that’s wrong” and “that is completely out of line.” This survey asked both questions, and the gap between them identifies which issues turn agreement into action.

Key Takeaways

68% say it is completely crazy that schools can hide gender changes from parents, the highest intensity score in the survey, by a wide margin.
Three more issues top 60% completely crazy, returning deported criminals with tax dollars (61%), non-citizen voting (61%), and the $1,700 tax increase (60%).
Voting integrity shows the same intensity in reverse, 60% say proof of citizenship is completely common sense, and 58% say the same of photo ID.
DOWNLOAD REPORT

Why It Matters

In a midterm election, turnout decides everything. Voters who call a position completely crazy not just somewhat are the ones most likely to show up, volunteer, donate, and talk to their neighbors. A position 78% call crazy is useful messaging; a position 61% call completely crazy is a mobilization tool.

How To Use This Data

Lead with the high-intensity issues in closing arguments and voter contact these are positions where voters already feel strongly, and the job is to connect that feeling to a candidate and an election date. Save lower-intensity issues for building coalition breadth, and avoid using the one genuine split, ballot counting, as an applause line.

Share America's New Majority Project

The Completely Crazy List: Issues That Make People Angry

Schools hiding gender changes from parents: 81% crazy overall. 68% completely crazy the strongest intensity in the survey.
Taxpayer money to bring back deported criminals: 78% crazy overall. 61% completely crazy.
Illegal immigrants voting in local elections: 79% crazy overall. 61% completely crazy.
The $1,700 tax increase on families: 79% crazy overall. 60% completely crazy.

The Completely Common Sense List: Issues That Make People Vote

Proof of citizenship to register to vote: 79% common sense overall. 60% completely common sense — positive intensity that matches the highest crazy scores.
Photo ID to vote: 77% common sense overall. 58% completely common sense, within 2 points of citizenship on intensity.
Voting integrity is the issue cluster where strong positive feelings run highest — voters feel as strongly about what they want as about what they reject.

Issues That Are Clear But Feel Less Urgent

Males in women’s private spaces: 70% crazy overall, but only 55% completely crazy fifteen points below the top-intensity items.
Opposing verification for welfare benefits: 65% crazy overall, just 44% completely crazy the lowest intensity score on a clearly-crazy item.
Welfare with no work requirement: 68% crazy overall, 44% completely crazy broad agreement, softer feelings.
Use these issues to show coalition breadth; use the high-intensity issues above to show the coalition is fired up.

The Bottom Line

Most of these positions draw broad disapproval or broad support. But on six specific issues, the feeling is intense enough to drive action. Those are the voters and the issues worth finding first.

*Source: America’s New Majority Project / Gingrich 360 / McLaughlin & Associates. National survey of 2,000 registered voters, May 14–18, 2026.

What’s Next

We will have more analysis on this messaging survey but up next, recent polling on our 250^th celebrations of the Nation.

Get in touch with us anytime, and let’s make an impact together!

Leave a comment

In Case You Missed It

Subscribe now

Democrat Lawmakers Are Taking Positions That Even Liberals Call Crazy

America's New Majority Project — Wed, 17 Jun 2026 15:02:25 GMT

On a number of issues involving healthcare, immigration, gender identity, and taxes, Democratic lawmakers in Congress are not only out of step with the American people—they are often to the left of many self-identified liberals.

Key Takeaways

Many Democratic policy positions are viewed as “crazy” by voters across the political spectrum, including majorities of self-identified liberals.
The strongest areas of agreement span healthcare, taxes, immigration, and parental rights, where liberal, moderate, and conservative voters often reach remarkably similar conclusions.
The political divide on these issues is often less about left versus right and more about voters versus political elites.
Democrats may struggle to win independent and swing voters if they remain associated with positions that even many liberal voters reject.

On a number of issues involving healthcare, immigration, gender identity, and taxes, Democratic lawmakers in Congress are not only out of step with the American people they are often to the left of many self-identified liberals.

Why it Matters

Midterm elections typically favor the party out of power. However, if Democrats remain associated with positions that large majorities of voters—and often majorities of liberals—view as “crazy,” they may struggle to win the independents needed for a successful election.

How to Use This Data

This data identifies the issues where fact-based contrast messages are most likely to resonate with swing voters because they expose the largest gap between Democratic elected officials and the broader electorate.

Download Report

Immigration and Voting: Voters Oppose Illegal Immigrant Voting and Support Photo ID

Letting illegal immigrants vote in local and state elections: 79% overall crazy. Liberals: 67%. Moderates: 77%. Conservatives: 92%.
Using taxpayer money to bring back immigrants deported for criminal records: 78% overall crazy. Liberals: 69%. Moderates: 76%. Conservatives: 91%.
Requiring photo ID to vote: 77% say this is common sense. Liberals: 68% say it is common sense.
Requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote: 79% common sense overall. Liberals: 71% common sense. A 24-point gap with conservatives, but liberals are still on the majority side.

Gender Ideology and Schools: Voters Support Parents Rights and Integrity of Women’s Sports

Letting school officials encourage a child to change their gender identity without telling the parents: 81% overall crazy. Liberals: 64%. Moderates: 84%. Conservatives: 94%.
Allowing people born male to compete in women’s sports: 74% overall crazy. Liberals: 48%. Moderates: 77%. Conservatives: 93%. This is the only issue where liberals are closely divided, but moderates oppose it by a wide margin.

Taxes: Voters Reject Allowing Tax Increases; Support Middle Class Tax Cuts

Allowing a $1,700 tax increase on American families: 79% overall crazy. Liberals: 77%. Moderates: 76%. Conservatives: 85%.
Opposing tax cuts for seniors, small businesses, and tipped and hourly workers: 61% overall crazy. Liberals: 60%. Moderates: 59%. Conservatives: 67%.

Healthcare: Voters Want More Choice and Less Money for Insurance Companies

Rules that limit your healthcare choices and add government control: 76% overall crazy. Liberals: 71%. Moderates: 73%. Conservatives: 85%.
Sending more taxpayer money to insurance companies instead of patients: 71% overall crazy. Liberals: 71%. Moderates: 66%. Conservatives: 78%.

The Bottom Line

Across a wide variety of issues, the largest divide is not between liberal and conservative voters. It is between Democratic elected officials and the voters they claim to represent.

Identifying where Democratic positions diverge from public opinion is only half the equation; the messaging study shows which half moves votes. Fact-anchored contrast messages that cite a documented record and invite verification consistently outperformed attack messages on believability and vote impact, with no issue where attack was the better choice for persuadable voters.

On healthcare and taxes, contrast messages produced the strongest Independent movement of any issue tested, the same categories where this survey shows voters converging on common sense. The data above shows where elected officials and the public have drifted apart; the messaging research shows how to turn that gap into votes.

*Source: America’s New Majority Project / Gingrich 360 / McLaughlin & Associates. National survey of 2,000 registered voters, May 14–18, 2026. Ideology figures from Banner 6; intensity figures from Banner 1 total sample.

What’s Next

We will have more analysis on this messaging survey over the next few weeks along more on our 250^th celebrations of the Nation.

Get in touch with us anytime, and let’s make an impact together!

Leave a comment

Contrast Messages Outperform Attack Messages Across Every Issue

America's New Majority Project — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:43:17 GMT

Share America's New Majority Project

Key Takeaways

Fact-anchored contrast messages outperform attack messages on five tested issues—a consistent net differential of 5 to 9 points overall, and up to 14 points among Independents.
Believability is higher for contrast messages on every issue—gaps range from 6 to 14 points. The attack message never exceeds 52% believability and never matches the floor of any contrast message tested.
Contrast messages produce stronger movement among Independents on four of five issues—most pronounced on healthcare (+26 vs. +12) and taxes (+23 vs. +12). Independents are the demographic most sensitive to message structure.
Two structural elements drive the gap: a verification offer and a positive statement of what the candidate stands for. Attack messages include neither.

Why it Matters

When voter trust in political claims is low, anchoring a message in a verifiable record and inviting the listener to check the facts on their own function as a credibility multiplier, producing stronger believability and vote movement among the persuadable voters who decide elections.

How to Use This Data

Structure messaging around a contrast between your position and your opponents, using plain, factual language that invites the audience to verify it themselves. Unverifiable characterizations of the opponents position are not as effective. The data is unambiguous: there is no issue or demographic subgroup in this survey where a pure attack outperforms fact-anchored contrasts when the goal is moving persuadable voters.

Download report

How to Read This Report

Each issue section is divided into two subsections, one for each message format tested. The definitions below describe what each format is and how it was constructed. The two metrics reported within each subsection, Believability and Vote Impact are defined immediately below the message descriptions.

Fact-Anchored Contrast Message

Cites a candidate’s documented vote record, names specific policy benefits, and closes with an invitation for the voter to verify the claim independently. It draws the contrast to the opponent’s position using the same verifiable record, letting the evidence make the argument.

Attack Message

Characterizes the opponent’s position or intent using pointed, emotionally charged language without citing a verifiable source. It asserts rather than documents, making a strong claim the voter has no way to independently confirm.

Believability

Measures the share of voters who rate a message “likely true”, establishing whether a message earns enough credibility to be persuasive before vote impact is even considered.

Vote Impact

Measures how the message moves voter intentions when voters accept it as true, the net share who say they are more likely to vote for the candidate minus those who say less likely.

Taxes: Fact-Anchored Contrast Messages Beat Attack Messages by 5 Points Overall, 11 Points Among Independents

Of the five issues tested, taxes carried the second-highest congressional vote importance rating and a 30% deal-breaker rate making message discipline especially consequential. The test centered on HR1, the Working Families Tax Cut Act, with the contrast message citing the vote directly and naming specific household benefits. The 11-point Independent gap between the two formats is the clearest evidence in the taxes test that framing, not policy, is doing the persuasion work.

Fact-Anchored Contrast Message

Believability 55% / vote impact +19 net (all registered voters). Likely voters: 56% believability, +20 net.
Independents: +23 net vote impact—the decisive swing-segment number for this message.
Republicans +79 believability net; New Majority +49. Democrats the only negative segment (−32 believability net).

Attack Message

Believability 48% / vote impact +14 net—7 and 5 points below contrast respectively.
Independents: +12 net—an 11-point gap vs. contrast, the widest Independent framing differential in the taxes test.

Healthcare: Highest Believability Gap in the Survey—and Strongest Overall Vote Impact

Healthcare ranked first in both congressional vote importance and deal-breaker rate, making it the highest-stakes issue in the survey for how a message is structured. The test framed the contrast around patient choice and a candidate’s position, while the attack asserted Democratic intent without a verifiable source. The results were the most decisive in the survey contrast outperformed attack by 9 points on overall vote impact and 14 points among Independents.

Fact-Anchored Contrast Message

Believability 59% / vote impact +23 net—tied for strongest contrast vote impact in the survey.
Independents: +26 net—the largest Independent vote-impact net for any contrast message across all five issues.
Democrats at −15 believability net—most competitive Democrat score in the survey, signaling unusual cross-partisan resonance on this frame.

Attack Message

Believability 48% / vote impact +14 net—11 and 9 points below contrast.
Independents: +12 net—a 14-point gap vs. contrast, the largest Independent framing differential in the entire survey.

Women’s Sports: Highest Believability Score in the Survey—Largest Independent Vote-Impact Net

The test centered on the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, with the contrast message citing the vote directly and the attack characterizing the opponent’s position without documentation. What separates this issue from the others is the bipartisan dimension. Democrats registered a positive believability net on the contrast message, the only time that occurred across all five issues. That opening disappeared entirely under the attack format, making message structure more consequential here than on any other issue tested.

Fact-Anchored Contrast Message

Believability 65% (highest in survey) / vote impact +23 net. Likely voters: 66% believability.
Independents: +28 net—the highest Independent vote-impact score in the entire survey.
Democrats net +4 believability—the only issue where Democrats are positive on a contrast message, indicating genuine bipartisan credibility on this frame.

Attack Message

Believability 51% / vote impact +17 net—14-point believability gap vs. contrast.
Independents: +19 net— 9 points below contrast. Democrats swing to −43 believability net (vs. +4 for contrast)—attack eliminates the bipartisan opening entirely.

Welfare Reform: Highest Believability for Any Contrast Message—and Strongest Believability Gap

The test focused on HR1's work requirements and eligibility verification provisions, a frame that proved to have unusual cross-partisan credibility when delivered with factual anchoring. The contrast message produced the highest believability score in the entire survey at 61%, with Democrat-leaning voters returning a positive believability net, a result that held even as vote impact between the two formats nearly converged. The 11-point believability gap is the strongest credibility differential in the survey and the primary reason contrast remains the preferred long-term frame on this issue.

Fact-Anchored Contrast Message

Believability 61% (highest in survey) / vote impact +17 net. NM-Def/Prob Dem: +19 believability net—unusually strong cross-partisan credibility.
Democrats at −13 believability net—the least negative Democrat score in the survey; the work-requirement frame crosses party lines more than any other issue tested.
Independents: +23 net vote impact. Unconverted MAGA: +54 believability net, +21 vote net.

Attack Message

Believability 50% / vote impact +16 net—vote impact nearly converges with contrast (+17), but the 11-point believability gap persists.
Independents: +26 net—the one issue where attack edges contrast among Independents (+23 for contrast); the credibility deficit remains regardless.
Republican believability drops to 78%—the lowest R score for any message in the survey; “handouts” framing undercuts credibility even within the base.

Immigration: Contrast Leads on Believability; Vote Impact Converges Overall

On immigration, the contrast message gave voters a specific, verifiable fact: an 87% reduction in illegal crossings tied directly to a congressional vote. Both messages moved voters at the same rate but that doesn't mean they worked equally well. Voters were 6 points more likely to believe the contrast message was true. That gap matters because a voter who trusts what they're hearing today is more open to the next message they receive. Even when two messages produce the same immediate result, the one voters believe is the one that keeps working.

Border security and enforcement funding; 87% reduction in illegal crossings cited with HR1 votes as the verifiable anchor.

Fact-Anchored Contrast Message

Believability 58% / vote impact +16 net. NM-Def/Prob GOP: 92% believability / +88 net—the highest single-segment score in the entire survey.
Independents: +21 net vote impact.
Where voter impact ties with attack, the credibility advantage still compounds over a campaign cycle—the verification offer builds cumulative trust that a pure attack cannot.

Attack Message

Believability 52% / vote impact +16 net—the only issue where attack achieves overall parity on vote impact; a 6-point believability gap remains.

Independents: +20 net—1 point below contrast, essentially even.

Democrats: −47 net vote impact—the deepest Democrat negative in the survey; attack framing maximally hardens partisan lines on immigration.

The Bottom Line

Message structure is a choice and this survey shows that it is a consequential one. Across five issues, two message formats, and every voter segment measured, the structural difference between a fact-anchored contrast message and a pure attack produced consistent, replicable differences in both believability and vote impact. The contrast format did not win because the issues favored it. It did not win because the political environment was unusually receptive. It won because a verification offer and a positive candidate position change how voters process a claim from assertion to evidence.

The practical implication is straightforward. Anchor the message in a documented record. Name what the candidate did and why it matters. Draw the contrast to the opponent using the same verifiable standard. Invite the voter to check it. That structure outperformed the alternative on every issue in this survey and the gap was largest precisely among the voters who decide competitive outcomes: Independents, cross-pressured partisans, and high-salience issue voters who are weighing credibility as much as policy.

There is no issue in this data where the attack format is the better choice for moving persuadable voters. That is not a preference. It is the finding.

What’s Next

We will have more analysis on this messaging survey over the next few weeks along more on our 250^th celebrations of the Nation.

Get in touch with us anytime, and let’s make an impact together!

Leave a comment

Wearable Health Devices Go Mainstream: Survey Reveals Strong Support for Patient-Controlled Health Data

America's New Majority Project — Sun, 24 May 2026 12:15:41 GMT

Share America's New Majority Project

Key Takeaways

Wearable health devices are now mainstream and already influencing behavior for millions of Americans. Nearly half of respondents say they at least sometimes act on wearable prompts related to exercise, sleep, or other health habits.
Americans strongly support integrating wearable data into health care—but they want patients, not institutions, to remain in control of that data.
The biggest divide is generational, not political. Younger Americans are dramatically more likely to trust wearable guidance and embrace wearable-centered health management.
Americans are comfortable with wearable data being used to improve care and support research, but become much more cautious when insurers or commercial entities are involved.

Wearable technology is rapidly changing how Americans think about health care. What was once viewed primarily as a fitness tool is increasingly becoming part of a broader expectation that health care should be continuous, personalized, and patient-directed. Wearable devices are already influencing health decisions for many Americans—especially younger adults—while reinforcing strong support for greater patient control over health data and medical records.

Why it Matters

Wearable technology is accelerating a shift from a health care system built around occasional doctor visits to one centered on continuous monitoring, real-time feedback, and greater patient engagement. Americans increasingly expect health care to function more like modern technology: personalized, accessible, and integrated into daily life.

How to Use This Data

Digital health policy and messaging should focus on patient empowerment rather than institutional data collection. Americans are most supportive of wearable data when it improves care, increases access, and remains under patient control—and become more skeptical when data is tied to institutional or financial leverage.

Download Report

Wearable Technology Is Becoming Mainstream

More than half of Americans report using a wearable health or fitness device at least occasionally, including over one-third who say they use one regularly.

Usage is especially high among younger, college-educated, higher-income, and urban or suburban respondents. Age was the single largest demographic divide in the survey, with younger Americans dramatically more likely to use wearable devices and engage with their recommendations than older Americans, who remain more tied to traditional physician-centered care.

Wearables Are Already Influencing Health Decisions

Wearable devices are not simply passive tracking tools. Nearly half of Americans said they at least sometimes act on wearable prompts, such as reminders to walk, sleep, hydrate, or engage in other healthy behaviors. Roughly one-quarter said they follow those prompts often or always.

Doctors remain the dominant source of health authority overall. However, nearly one-third of respondents said they are either more likely to follow wearable guidance than physician advice—or view both about the same—when making day-to-day health decisions. Younger Americans were significantly more likely to view wearable guidance as influential.

Americans Support Integration—But Want Guardrails

Large majorities said they would like wearable data to be more integrated into the health care they receive.

Respondents were most comfortable with wearable data being used:

to provide personalized health recommendations
to share with doctors involved in their care
to support anonymous medical research.

Support declined when wearable data was associated with insurance companies or commercial product development.

Respondents were also somewhat more supportive of sharing wearable data in exchange for discounts or rewards for healthy behavior than allowing insurers to adjust what people pay for coverage based on those same behaviors.

Overall, Americans appear open to wearable-driven personalization and health incentives, while remaining cautious about institutional or financial uses of personal health data.

Americans Want Greater Control Over Health Data

The strongest findings in the survey centered on patient control over health information.

Large majorities agreed that individuals—not institutions—should control access to their health data, including medical records and wearable information.

Respondents also preferred a more portable, wearable-style model of health data access, where patients can easily retrieve and share their information, over the traditional medical-record system in which data is primarily managed by doctors or health systems.

Notably, these views showed relatively little partisan polarization, with Republicans and Democrats expressing broadly similar attitudes toward wearable integration and patient access to health data.

The Bottom Line

Americans are increasingly comfortable with technology playing a larger role in health care—but they want that technology to empower patients, not institutions.

The public appears ready for a more continuous, personalized, and digitally integrated health care experience, provided patients remain in control of how their information is accessed and used.

The future of digital health may depend less on technology adoption itself than on whether patients trust that the system ultimately works for them.

What’s Next

We will have more analysis on voter attitudes about pressing issues over the next few weeks as well as updated responses to questions in our continuing posts regarding the 250^th celebrations of the Nation.

Get in touch with us anytime, and let’s make an impact together!

Leave a comment

Americans Overwhelmingly Align on Parental Rights, Economic Freedom, and Border Security

America's New Majority Project — Tue, 12 May 2026 19:33:40 GMT

According to polling data by America’s New Majority Project from 2023–2026, Americans hold strong cross-cutting views on a range of policy issues.

Parental Rights in Education

82% of Americans believe parents should have visibility into school curriculum
73% think schools should notify parents if a child expresses a desire to identify as a different gender

Economic & Personal Freedom

79% of Americans favor middle-class tax relief
88% want the freedom to choose their own vehicle rather than being directed toward a specific option

Governance & National Security

77% of Americans support restricting voting to U.S. Citizens only
77% want more Border Patrol agents deployed at the border

Image generated by AI using NotebookLM and data from America’s New Majority Project and edited by humans.

All data is from surveys conducted by America’s New Majority Project (ANMP).

Americans Demand Control Over Their Own Health Data — By Overwhelming Margins

America's New Majority Project — Mon, 11 May 2026 19:36:54 GMT

Share America's New Majority Project

Key Takeaways

73% of voters say individuals should control their own health data
Voters are most comfortable sharing data with their doctors
Wearable data integration is wanted — on patients’ terms
Younger voters lead on wearable adoption but share the same control instinct

Americans are deeply protective of their personal health information and a new poll from America’s New Majority Project makes clear just how strong that instinct is. When asked whether health data should be under individual control or broadly shared across the health care system, nearly three in four voters chose individual control. The consensus spans party lines, age groups, and regions.

Why it Matters

Health data is rapidly becoming one of the most valuable and sensitive categories of personal information. Wearable devices, electronic medical records, and AI-powered diagnostic tools are generating unprecedented volumes of patient data — and the rules governing who can access that data are still being written. This polling shows that voters have a strong and clear prior: they want to be in the driver’s seat. Policymakers and health systems that treat patient data as a shared resource risk a significant political and public trust backlash.

How to Use This Data

Health data legislation should prioritize patient agency and consent. Opt-in, patient-controlled data sharing is likely to earn broad support, while insurer access without explicit consent should be treated cautiously. Voters may accept sharing data for discounts, but not for premium increases. The findings also support clear, accessible health data summaries that patients can easily understand and manage.

Subscribe now

Voters Demand Individual Control Over Health Data By A 3-To-1 Margin

73% of voters say individuals should have full control over their health data and decide who can access it — vs. only 21% who favor broad sharing across doctors, insurers, and health systems.

53% strongly agree that individuals should control their own health data making individual control not just a plurality position but a commanding one.
Only 7% strongly favor the broad-sharing model, and just 15% lean that direction, for a combined 21.2%.
The margin is consistent across age groups: 70% of 18–29-year-olds, 69% of 30–44-year-olds, 74% of 45–64-year-olds, and 77% of voters 65+ all favor individual control.

Voters Will Share Data With Their Doctor But Draw The Line At Insurers And Companies

53% are comfortable sharing wearable health data with their doctor for their own care the only use case that clears a majority.

Sharing for personalized health recommendations earns 42% comfort a solid second, but still well below the doctor-sharing figure.
Receiving health data in a clear, understandable format is what 41% of voters want signaling strong demand for patient-facing data literacy tools.
Only 14% are comfortable with their wearable data being used by companies to develop products, and just 11% approve of insurance company access.
19% say “none of the above,” unwilling to share their wearable data for any of the listed purposes a sizable result from those who want a complete data lockdown.

Voters Want Wearables In Their Health Care On Their Own Terms

51% of voters use a health wearable (36% regularly, 15% occasionally) — making this a mainstream technology, not a niche one.
54% prefer a patient-controlled model for their health data (where they can easily see, correct, and control who accesses it), compared to 38% who prefer a broadly shared model.
By party, the patient-control preference holds across the board: 57% of Republicans, 53% of Democrats, and 54% of independents favor the patient-control data model.
Despite wearable adoption, voters still trust their doctor first: 56% say they follow their doctor’s advice for day-to-day health decisions, vs. just 16% who primarily follow their wearable or health app.

The Bottom Line

The numbers here are unusually lopsided for a health care question. At 73%, individual control of health data is not just a majority view it is near consensus.

The political opportunity is clear, championing patient data rights is a winning issue across the coalition. Policies that give patients real control easy access, correction rights, and meaningful consent before any sharing will find broad support. Policies that allow institutions to access or monetize patient data without clear, affirmative consent will face significant backlash.

What’s Next

We will have more analysis on voter attitudes about pressing issues over the next few weeks as well as updated responses to questions regarding the 250^th celebrations of the Nation.

Get in touch with us anytime, and let’s make an impact together!

Leave a comment

With Recent Moves by Some Cities to Allow Non-Citizens to Vote, America's New Majority Project Looks at Past Survey Data

America's New Majority Project — Tue, 05 May 2026 19:05:26 GMT

Based on 2024 survey data showing American public opinion on non-citizens and illegal immigrants voting in U.S. elections.

Key findings:

76.5% of registered voters oppose illegal immigrants voting in U.S. elections overall. Opposition remains high across all levels of government:
78.3% for federal elections,
77.5% for state elections,
75.0% for local elections.

Even when respondents are told that illegal immigrants pay local taxes, 67.5% still oppose allowing them to vote in local elections.

Image generated by AI using NotebookLM and data from America’s New Majority Project and edited by humans.

All data is from surveys conducted by America’s New Majority Project (ANMP).

Two Focus Groups, One National Survey and a Few Questions Only November Can Answer

America's New Majority Project — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 16:03:05 GMT

Yogi Berra, the famous Yankees catcher, said you can observe a lot just by watching. Over two weeks we watched six men on April 1, eight women on April 2, and a national open-ended survey of nearly 900 voters.

We pulled together several pieces of research and looked for what they had in common. The first was a national survey of around 900 Americans, designed to map the lay of the land — what voters care about, who they trust, and what they’re feeling.

The second was a focus group with men and women from across the country. All told a similar story.

THE MEN — 6 PARTICIPANTS

Party: 4 Independent, 1 Republican, 1 non-voter

2024 Vote: 4 voted Trump, 1 other candidate, 1 did not vote

Income: Median $40K–$79K

Ethnicity: 2 White, 2 African American, 1 Mixed Race, 1 Middle Eastern

States: KY, AZ, MA, IL, WV

THE WOMEN — 8 PARTICIPANTS

Party: 6 Republican, 1 Independent, 1 non-voter

2024 Vote: 7 voted Trump, 1 did not vote

Income: Median $60K–$79K

Ethnicity: 5 White, 2 African American, 1 mixed

States: MI, LA, MT, TN, PA, FL

Three studies, one message, one surprise.

What everyone agrees on

Cost of living is the only issue. Half the focus-group participants named finances first, unprompted.
Nobody trusts politicians. Every man in the room said no politician could convince him the economy is improving. About 1 in 4 voters nationally say the same.
Government takes the blame. Six of eight women blamed government for rising prices. Men blamed government and corporations together — “the same gang, different colors.”
Proof beats promises. Nearly half of national respondents said only visibly falling prices would convince them a leader means it.

When asked “Lately, I’ve been worrying about…,” half the room named finances before anything else.

The surprise: men and women want different proof

We tested two statements a candidate might use:

Statement A: “We passed legislation that will lower costs.”

Statement B: “The average grocery bill dropped by $40 a month.”

Men: 6–0 for Statement A. They want a paper trail. “Legislation is either you passed it or you didn’t,” one Arizona Independent told us.
Women: 5–3 for Statement B. They want a number they can feel at the register. Nicole in Pennsylvania, a mother of three “scraping change” most weeks, said the dollar figure “seems like things were compared.”

Same skepticism, different standards of proof.

Men won't pick between government and corporations. Women will — and government takes the hit 3 to 1.

“I trust them to be who they are, and that is dishonest.”
- Participant Men’s Focus Group April 1, 2026

What we still don't know

Just fourteen voters in two rooms can’t tell us the full story of how the country will vote in November. But here’s a quick update on what a recent national survey is showing.

Is the men-vs-women proof gap real at scale? If yes, every economic message needs two versions.
Which specific policy do voters want? Tariffs, energy, price caps, or tax cuts — forced-choice, segmented.
How wide is the awareness gap? Both groups reacted to OBBBA provisions (no tax on tips, blocking the $1,700 hike, senior deductions). Almost nobody knew they existed.
What’s driving rural healthcare concern? It runs triple the national average — hospital closures, insurance, or prescriptions?
Where is the education vulnerability? The one issue where women leaned Democratic. How deep does that go?

THE BOTTOM LINE

Americans know what they want: proof, not promises. But they don’t agree on what “proof” looks like. That divide is the single biggest finding across all three studies and it’s also the one we’re least certain about. Campaigns are about to spend millions building messages on assumptions that currently rest on just fourteen voters.

These small focus groups are a sign of smoke, not a fire. They point us toward the right questions, but they can’t tell us whether Americans are actually persuadable or whether they’ve already made up their minds and nothing a candidate says will matter. What Americans are really looking for, and whether any message can still reach them, is exactly what a full national survey can show.

With the 2026 midterms close, guessing is not a strategy. The next step is a full national survey 30 to 40 questions, with split-sample tests on the exact message formats we heard in these rooms.

Sources: Occam National Survey (March 2026, n≈900); ANMP Men’s Focus Group (April 1, 2026, n=6); ANMP Women’s Focus Group (April 2, 2026, n=8).

Charts prepared using AI and using ANMP data and edited by humans.

Freedom 250: Looking Back With Pride, Looking Forward With Hope

America's New Majority Project — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 12:51:59 GMT

As the United States approaches its celebration of its 250^th year, Americans overwhelmingly affirm the enduring relevance of the nation’s founding principles. According to data collected from America’s New Majority Project from 2024 to 2026, nearly 82% of registered voters believe the ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness remain relevant today. An even larger share, 83%, believe all citizens should take pride in the Founding Fathers’ creation of the world’s longest-surviving democracy.

But Americans aren’t just looking backward. More than three-quarters of the country (76%) express optimism about the role of science and technology in building a better future a sentiment that reflects the same pioneering spirit that shaped the republic 250 years ago.

Image generated by AI using NotebookLM and data from America’s New Majority Project and edited by humans.

When asked which fields of scientific advancement make them most optimistic, voters ranked their priorities clearly. Treatments for disease lead the way, with 59% of respondents citing hope for new breakthroughs against deadly and debilitating illnesses. Cleaner energy follows at 47%, reflecting broad interest in more sustainable power sources. Understanding the aging process drew 33%, while artificial intelligence and robotics garnered 22% and 13% respectively.

Space exploration, though ranked last at 7%, carries symbolic weight that outpaces its polling numbers. The push toward Mars and beyond represents a continuation of the American tradition of venturing into the unknown the same impulse that drove the founders to imagine a new form of government nearly two and a half centuries ago.

America’s celebration of 250 years arrives at a moment when Americans feel anchored by their constitutional heritage and energized by scientific possibility. The data paints a portrait of a nation that honors where it came from while remaining eager to reach for the stars to see what comes next.

All data is from surveys conducted by America’s New Majority Project (ANMP).

Americans Want to Feel It, Not Just Hear About It — And That's the Opening

America's New Majority Project — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 14:16:23 GMT

Country singer David Allen Coe has a song titled “Actions Speak Louder Than Words,” which could be the theme song for America’s New Majority Project’s latest survey. There’s a line that kept showing up in our survey, in different words but always the same idea: “Don’t tell me things are getting better. Show me at the grocery store.”

America’s New Majority Project asked nearly 900 voters to describe, in their own words, no multiple-choice, what matters most to them right now and what it would take to earn their trust. The answers point to something campaigns should pay very close attention to, which is voters have moved past the debate about whether the economy is an issue. They’re ready for the next conversation. What are you going to do about it, and how will I feel it in my daily life?

That shift matters. Nearly half of respondents said the single most convincing thing a leader could do is deliver visible cost relief on the things they buy every week. More than a third want named policies with real timelines attached. Put those together and roughly four in five voters are essentially saying “Give me something concrete and I’ll listen.” That’s a road sign you can’t ignore this election cycle.

Image generated by NotebookLM using orignal data from ANMP and enhanced by human editing

And here’s what makes the opening even wider: this demand crosses every partisan line. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all rank kitchen-table costs as their top concern at nearly identical rates. They all apply the same test, “Can I feel it when I fill up the tank, buy groceries, pay rent?”. A candidate who can connect a specific action to a specific result that voters experience in daily life has a built-in audience that includes the middle, not just the base.

The survey also found a constituency that’s been largely overlooked. Rural voters name economics and healthcare access as their dominant concerns — with healthcare running at roughly triple the national average. These are communities dealing with hospital closures, provider shortages, and long drives for basic care. They’re not asking for rhetoric. They’re asking for a doctor within driving distance and prescriptions they can afford. Whoever speaks to that first owns the issue.

What comes through most clearly in the data is that Americans haven’t tuned out. They’ve just raised the bar. They want to feel improvements in their daily lives. Improvements at the pharmacy counter, reductions in their monthly electric bill, and lower prices in the checkout line. The candidate who figures out how to connect policy to that felt experience isn’t just winning a messaging war, they’re meeting voters exactly where they already are.

Like David Allen Coe says, “Actions speak louder than words don’t you know/Flowers all grow from the seeds that we sow/ But a weed’s still a weed boy wherever it grows / And actions speak louder than words.”

Leave a comment

Looking to July 4, 2026 — America and the Constitution

America's New Majority Project — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 19:32:15 GMT

As the nation approaches its 250^th anniversary, a paradox sits at the center of American public life: voters revere the founding documents more than almost anything else in politics, and simultaneously believe the country is abandoning them.

The survey data is striking in its clarity. More than four-in-five registered voters affirm that the core principles of the Declaration of Independence equality, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness remain relevant today. This is not a narrow majority or a partisan lean. It is a consensus figure that holds across demographic lines — the kind of number that rarely appears in modern polling on any subject. Americans are not ambivalent about their founding ideals. They claim them emphatically.

And yet nearly two-in-three of those same voters believe the country is moving further away from those principles, not closer. Only a small fraction roughly one-in-six see the nation trending in the right direction on this question. The gap between reverence and reality is enormous, and it carries a specific emotional charge heading into the celebration of America at 250: Americans feel they are losing something they still deeply value.

This tension extends to how voters regard the founders themselves. A commanding majority believe the founding fathers should be honored for their accomplishments even while acknowledging they were wrong about slavery. A similarly large share go further, agreeing that honoring the founders is essential to unifying a diverse country. These are not culture-war responses. They reflect a practical judgment: that the founding generation built something worth preserving and that the framework they left behind — particularly the Constitution — remains the most credible common ground available in a fractured nation.

That framework, however, is under pressure from competing visions of what rights mean and who they protect. The First Amendment remains a touchstone, but the polling reveals real fault lines beneath the surface. When asked whether preventing discrimination should take precedence over preserving speech and religious liberty, voters tilt toward protecting the First Amendment but not overwhelmingly. The margin is single digits, suggesting a public that takes both values seriously and resists being forced to choose.

On specific applications, the pattern holds. Strong majorities oppose government censorship of religious texts, even when framed as a measure to prevent discrimination. Voters draw careful lines around protest rights most believe political dissent should be protected, but support for speech protections drops sharply when expression crosses into endorsing violence. These are not contradictions. They are the boundaries of a public that wants robust liberty with enforceable limits and expects its institutions to manage that balance rather than collapse it.

The question for July 4, 2026, is whether political leaders will meet the electorate where it stands. The data describes a public that wants to celebrate the founding, believes the constitutional framework still works, and is frustrated that the country’s direction does not match its stated values. This is not cynicism. It is an invitation — one that arrives with a deadline, a national birthday, and a population that still believes the original promise is worth keeping. Whether anyone in power takes this seriously is the open question the data cannot answer.

The Iran War and the Persuasion Gap: Why Pre-War Data Shows a Path to Majority Support

America's New Majority Project — Tue, 17 Mar 2026 16:48:35 GMT

Most Americans say they oppose Operation Epic Fury, however, surveys by America’s New Majority Project, collected in 2024 and 2025, showed support for military action against Iran. That support was strong, it held up even when people were told it could lead to a bigger conflict, and the data suggests it can be recovered.

In February 2024, when armed groups funded by Iran were attacking American troops in the Middle East, nearly 54% of voters said the United States should strike Iran directly. When the survey warned that strikes could lead to a wider war, support barely dropped — still above 51%. Almost half of voters said they were more worried than before about the safety of troops overseas. Only about 28% thought the government was doing enough to protect them, while close to 47% said the response was not strong enough. Americans were ready for action and frustrated that it had not happened.

That frustration ran deep. Only 35% of voters believed a peace deal between Israel and Hamas would stop Iranian-backed groups from attacking American forces. In April 2025, just over half of registered voters said they believe “Death to America” is a genuine call for violence, not just political talk.

The lesson for today is that when military action is tied to protecting troops and stopping Iranian aggression, most voters support striking Iran. A Reuters and Ipsos poll conducted right after the strikes backs this up — nearly half said they would support the war if it ended Iran’s nuclear program or led to a friendlier government in Tehran. As Republican pollster Bill McInturff put it: “Attitudes shift in this country based on results.” The support is not gone. It is waiting.

The bottom line, before the war, most Americans believed Iran was a serious threat, diplomacy had failed, and force was justified. The path to building support for Operation Epic Fury is clear: explain the goal in terms of U.S. interests and show results. A March 2026 McLaughlin & Associates national survey of 1,000 likely voters reinforces this point: 51% approved of military action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, rising to 57% when voters were reminded of Iran’s decades of hostility, and 59% agreed the U.S. should finish the job rather than face the same threat again later.

Leave a comment

Voters See Trump RX as Keeping a Promise on Drug Prices

America's New Majority Project — Mon, 09 Mar 2026 11:32:02 GMT

Share America's New Majority Project

Key Takeaways

Trump RX reinforces Trump’s promise to lower health care costs.
Awareness is still low — only about one-third are following the launch.
Price comparisons and insurance integration would boost usage.
Voters say insurers and middlemen must now lower prices too.

Most voters are not closely following news about the launch of Trump RX and say they are unlikely to use the site to check whether they can obtain lower prices for their medicines. However, a majority do agree that the website launch is an example of President Donald J. Trump keeping his campaign promises to lower the cost of health care. Many also say practical improvements to the website — particularly tools that make it more relevant for patients with insurance — would make them more likely to use it.

Why it Matters

Affordability remains Americans’ top economic concern, and health care costs are a central part of this anxiety. Demonstrating credible ways to lower costs — especially prescription drug prices — has clear political benefits. Initiatives that show tangible savings for patients are likely to resonate with voters and reinforce broader economic messaging.

How to Use This Data

Messaging should emphasize that Trump RX is a platform that will expand over time, adding more medicines and tools that help patients find the lowest prices. It should also be framed as a transparency tool that exposes the real prices of drugs, helping hold insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) accountable.

The data also provides guidance on the improvements voters want most — particularly features that allow comparisons with insurance prices and other discount programs.

View the full data by clicking below.

Subscribe now

Most Say Trump RX is Example of Trump Keeping His Campaign Promises

Just 35% of voters say they are following news about the launch of Trump RX, including 42% of Republicans, 33% of Democrats and 27% of independents.
At the same time, 52% of voters say Trump RX is an example of President Trump keeping his campaign promises — suggesting that increasing awareness of the clearinghouse for lower-cost drugs could have political benefits.
Those agreeing include 81% of Republicans, 27% of Democrats, and 48% of independents.
27% of independents are following the launch, and 48% see it as promise-keeping.
Among target voter groups, 67% of Unconverted MAGA (those who approve of Trump policies but are undecided or voting Democrat in the midterms) and 53% of New Majority leaners or undecided voters agree Trump RX shows the President is keeping his promises.

Most Say They’re Unlikely to Use Trump RX — But Changes Would Boost Usage

42% of voters say they are likely to check Trump RX to see if they can obtain medicines at a lower cost, while 54% say they’re unlikely to do so.
There is a significant partisan divide: 61% of Republicans say they will check the site, compared with 26% of Democrats.

Despite this partisan difference, the results suggest growth opportunities lie in practical improvements rather than branding changes.

60% say they would be more likely to use Trump RX if it allowed users to compare prices with other discount sites and the price they would pay using insurance.
50% say they would be more likely to use it if purchases through Trump RX counted toward their insurance deductible.
43% say they would be more likely to use it if the platform had a nonpolitical name.

Drug Companies Receive Some Credit for Lower Prices — But Voters Say the Rest of the System Must Follow

49% agree that the lower prices on Trump RX show the drug companies are willing to lower prices to help American patients, though just 13% strongly agree. 37% disagree.
82% agree it is time for other parts of the health care system to do their part to lower prices for patients, including 47% who strongly agree.

The Bottom Line

Trump RX may not yet be widely used, but it already reinforces a powerful political message: Republicans are taking action to lower drug prices and expose health care middlemen. If awareness grows and the platform continues expanding, it can become a symbol of the broader Republican argument on health care affordability heading into the midterms.

What’s Next

We will have more analysis on voter attitudes about the government’s role in health care and other data on pressing issues.

Get in touch with us anytime, and let’s make an impact together!

Leave a comment

Workforce and Apprenticeship: What Voters Really Want

America's New Majority Project — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 15:04:02 GMT

Share America's New Majority Project

Key Takeaways

There is overwhelming, bipartisan support for expanding apprenticeship programs, with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all in strong agreement.
Broad, cross-partisan consensus exists for offering tax incentives to businesses that create apprenticeship positions.
A majority of Americans support shifting cultural emphasis away from four-year degrees toward alternative pathways.
Americans strongly prefer private-sector or public-private partnership leadership in developing apprenticeship programs, with the federal government ranking last as the least preferred option.

Voters overwhelmingly support expanding apprenticeship programs, tax incentives for businesses that create them, and shifting away from the four-year degree as the default pathway to the middle class.

Why it Matters

The timing of this sentiment shift is no accident. Student loan debt has reached crisis levels, and AI is rapidly reshaping the labor market—displacing white-collar jobs once considered degree-dependent while creating urgent demand for skilled tradespeople who can build and maintain the physical infrastructure AI cannot replace. As the cost of a four-year degree climbs and its return grows less certain, voters are making a more clear-eyed calculation about what actually prepares people for the economy ahead.

How to Use This Data

This data offers advocates a clear, evidence-based foundation. Bipartisan supermajorities support expanding apprenticeship programs, incentivizing business-led training via the tax code, and reducing the cultural primacy of four-year degrees. Voters reject federal leadership in implementation at 9%, with 53% favoring private-sector or partnership models.

Advocates can frame apprenticeship expansion as a market-driven, community-based workforce solution, which has the broadest public support.

View the full data by clicking below.

Subscribe now

84% Support Expanding Apprenticeship Programs

86% of Republicans, 83% of Democrats, and 81% of Independents support expanding apprenticeships where young people earn a salary while learning skilled trades.
Among target voters, 73% of Unconverted MAGA voters (those who approve of Trump’s policies but are undecided or voting Democrat on the generic ballot) and 81% of New Majority voters who are leaning or undecided support expanding apprenticeship programs.

82% Back Tax Incentives for Business-Led Apprenticeships

87% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats, and 79% of Independents support encouraging businesses through tax incentives to create apprenticeship positions combining on-the-job training with classroom education.
Unconverted MAGA: 76% support / New Majority Leaners (Lean R/Lean D/Und.): 80% support.

61% Say Reduce the Cultural Emphasis on Four-Year Degrees

69% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 58% of Independents support reducing the emphasis on four-year degrees compared to other pathways.
Only 21% oppose. 18% are undecided.

Who Should Lead Apprenticeship Development?

Business-Government Partnership: 33% (top choice).
Educational Institutions: 17%. State Governments: 9%. Federal Government: 9% (last).
Republicans favor private business (21%) and business-government partnership (37%). Democrats split between educational institutions (23%) and business partnerships (28%).

The Bottom Line

Americans are reconsidering that a four-year college degree is the only path to a good career. Polling shows broad support for expanding apprenticeship programs where young people earn while learning trades, with voters wanting tax breaks for businesses creating these opportunities. Rising college costs, student debt, and AI’s impact make trade skills more valuable.

Importantly, voters prefer businesses and communities lead this effort over the federal government.

What’s Next

Stay tuned—in the coming days, we will be posting more findings from our latest poll.

Get in touch with us anytime, and let’s make an impact together!

Leave a comment

The Roadmap to Community Support for Data Center Power

Joe DeSantis — Mon, 02 Mar 2026 11:00:17 GMT

This week, major technology companies that power America’s data center ecosystem will gather at the White House to formally sign the Ratepayer Protection Pledge President Trump announced in his February 24 State of the Union address. The initiative is designed to ensure that the rapid expansion of AI-driven computing infrastructure does not translate into higher electricity costs for local communities — a commitment that aligns closely with voter sentiment.

The scale of that expansion is staggering. According to data firm Cleanview, nearly 680 data centers are currently planned across the United States, requiring energy equivalent to roughly 186 large nuclear power plants. That is not a marginal increase in demand — it is a structural shift in America’s energy profile. Meeting it will require substantial new generation and transmission capacity. The question is no longer whether more power will be built, but how — and whether communities will support it.

For years, data center advocates have rightly emphasized the economic upside of large facilities: jobs, investment, and tax revenue. But as communities confront the electricity demand required to power those facilities — and the infrastructure that follows — resistance has surfaced, even in generally pro-growth regions. That’s where both this week’s pledge and recent polling from America’s New Majority Project, Building Consensus: Voters Back Energy Infrastructure When Communities Benefit—But Draw the Line at Eminent Domain, provide a practical roadmap.

There is an important strategic caution. Data center proponents should avoid trading one obstacle for another — overcoming objections to a data center by promising a power plant, only to run into opposition to the plant itself. Power generation facilities raise their own questions about siting, land use, and fairness. Simply saying “we’ll build our own power” does not eliminate friction; it shifts it.

Subscribe now

The good news is that opposition is not fixed. Our survey results show that support for new energy infrastructure rises dramatically when projects deliver tangible, local benefits. Eighty-four percent of voters say they are more likely to support new power plant construction if companies provide electric bill discounts to residents. Eighty-three percent say local hiring commitments increase their support. More than three-quarters say annual payments to local governments — investments in schools, roads, and community priorities — significantly boost support.

Just as important, voters draw a clear line at heavy-handed tactics such as using eminent domain for private projects. Respect for property rights and voluntary partnership remains foundational. Community trust is not built through mandates; it is built through mutual benefit.

There is historical precedent for how to do this right. Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) — legally binding contracts between developers and host communities — have been used successfully for decades. The 2001 Los Angeles Staples Center agreement, negotiated with more than 30 community groups and labor unions, established a template of binding local hiring and fiscal commitments that built durable support rather than sustained opposition.

More recently, the Block Island Wind Farm offers a closer analogue for energy infrastructure. In response to community friction, Deepwater Wind invested $2.5 million in island internet infrastructure, $2.5 million in support for local organizations, and maintained a dedicated community liaison. The project avoided litigation entirely and has operated since 2016 with sustained community backing. The data center siting challenge is not structurally different.

That insight is directly relevant to the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. By committing to shoulder the energy costs required to power their facilities — whether through on-site generation, long-term power purchase agreements, or other mechanisms — technology companies signal that local ratepayers should not be left holding the bill for grid upgrades driven by data center demand. That is an important first step.

But signing a pledge is only the beginning. To secure durable community support for the energy infrastructure that 680 planned facilities will require, data center advocates must pair ratepayer protection with the benefits voters say matter most: electricity bill relief, local jobs, and meaningful community investment — ideally formalized in enforceable agreements.

America needs both digital infrastructure and expanded energy capacity. The path forward is not to minimize community concerns, but to align growth with shared prosperity. Done right, the Ratepayer Protection Pledge can be more than a policy gesture — it can anchor a durable consensus for building the power that America’s digital future demands.

America’s New Majority Project creates and shares trustworthy opinion research and strategic messaging guidance. We work with partners to empower candidates and activists who are committed to bringing power back to everyday Americans and restoring a government of, by, and for the People.

Voters Prioritize Insurance Company Accountability in Health Care Reform

America's New Majority Project — Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:02:36 GMT

Share America's New Majority Project

Key Takeaways

Voters prioritize insurance-focused reforms: curb steering, increase transparency, ensure savings reach patients.
Insurer and middleman accountability is the strongest performing center-right message.
Most voters believe insurer-provider integration raises prices and a plurality supports limits on insurer ownership.
Voters oppose penalizing patients for choosing lower-priced, independent providers.

Voters prioritize reforms targeting insurance companies — especially proposals that curb insurer steering, guarantee savings flow directly to patients, and increase upfront transparency on total and out-of-pocket costs. Reflecting these priorities, among four center-right positioning statements tested, the message emphasizing insurance company and middleman accountability performed best.

Most voters also believe vertical integration in health care — particularly insurer ownership of providers — raises patient costs.

Why it Matters

Recent ANMP surveys show health care costs are voters’ No. 2 economic concern, driven largely by rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Voters consistently blame insurance companies more than other parts of the health care system for affordability challenges.

These findings identify which reforms prioritize most and which candidate messages generate the strongest support.

How to Use This Data

Candidates and advocates should frame health care reform around:

✓ Increasing insurer and middleman accountability

✓ Protecting patients from unfair practices

✓ Guaranteeing savings reach patients

View the full data by clicking below, or read key highlights in the summary.

Voters Prioritize Insurer-Focused Reforms

Reforms targeting insurer steering, passing savings directly to patients, and enhancing transparency draw the broadest support from voters.
The most intense support, with 39% saying it is a “top priority,” is for requiring insurance companies to pass 100% of discounts on medicines directly to patients at the pharmacy counter.
Prohibiting PMBs from making more money when patients are steered toward higher priced drugs is the next most intense – with 37% saying the reform is a top priority.
Demographic differences by party and race are minimal. Older voters react more intensely to reforms they see as saving them money on prescription drugs.

Insurer Accountability Message Tests Strongest

A candidate focused on curbing insurer and middleman abuses and requiring savings to be passed directly to patients tests strongest out of the four positioning statements tested, defeating the other three candidates by a roughly 20-point margin.
Candidates focused on price transparency and drug price controls were less effective, while a candidate focused on expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) tested the worst.
These results strongly reflect the priority level voters give to certain reforms, not their overall popularity.
Independents favor the transparency-focused candidate more than other demographic groups, though the insurer focused candidate still performs best with them.

Voters Skeptical of Vertical Integration in Health Care

59% believe vertical integration in health care – specifically insurers owning providers and other parts of the system – makes health care more expensive.
68% say insurers should not be allowed to charge patients higher out-of-pocket costs if they choose a lower priced, independent provider not owned by the insurer.
43% – a plurality – favor more limits on insurers owning other parts of the health care system. 26% oppose.
Demographic differences by party are minimal, but there are some differences by race and age. Black voters make up the only group who believes fewer limits should be placed on this sort of ownership, while older voters are more likely to favor more limits than younger.

The Bottom Line

Health care reform messages centered on insurance company accountability, patient savings, and transparency generate the broadest and most intense voter support. Candidates emphasizing insurer and middleman crackdowns hold a clear advantage over those focused primarily on transparency, drug pricing, or HSAs.

What’s Next

We will have more analysis from this health care survey, data on apprenticeships, and more.

Get in touch with us anytime, and let’s make an impact together!

Leave a comment

Insurance Companies Bear the Blame

America's New Majority Project — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 11:00:34 GMT

Share America's New Majority Project

Key Takeaways

Voters define the health care affordability crisis primarily through insurance costs.
Premiums are the dominant concern, followed by out-of-pocket costs.
Insurance companies are seen as the primary source of financial strain and most in need of fixing, though providers do not escape blame.
Overall, insurers are viewed as most responsible for voters’ top concerns.

The cost of health insurance premiums is by far the biggest concern of voters when it comes to health care, both when specifically asked about health care costs and the state of health care in the United States overall. Out-of-pocket costs, waste, fraud, and abuse, prescription drug costs, and surprise bills rank as second-tier concerns.

Most voters say insurers are more responsible for premiums and out-of-pocket costs, while voters more often blame the entire system for surprise bills and waste, fraud and abuse.

Why it Matters

Recent America’s New Majority Project surveys ranked health care costs as voters No. 2 economic concern and showed the popularity of reforms increasing transparency and patient control of their health care dollars.

These results reinforce earlier results: premiums should be the central affordability focus, and insurers the primary reform target.

For candidates, appearing to let insurers off the hook is a clear liability.

How to Use This Data

Messaging should lead with lowering monthly premiums and holding insurance companies and middlemen accountable. Health care agendas should clearly answer the question: “How does this lower premiums, reduce out-of-pocket costs, and increase health insurer accountability?”

Click on the image below to view the full data or read the summary below.

Premiums Are the No. 1 Health Care Concern

31% say the cost of insurance premiums is their greatest concern when it comes to the state of health care in the United States. Focusing on health care costs alone, 37% say premiums are the top concern.
The cost of premiums is the top health care cost concern of all demographic groups, with Democrats (41%) and Baby Boomer and older voters (42%) most concerned.
Out-of-pocket expenses (20%), waste, fraud and abuse (14%), and prescription drug costs (14%) are second-tier concerns. Notably, Republicans and independents are significantly more focused on waste, fraud, and abuse than Democrats.

Rising Premiums Seen as Economy-Wide Burden

65% of voters agree that higher health insurance premiums are a major reason for lower wages and less hiring, with strong agreement at 19%.
This agreement is shared by a majority among all demographic groups, with minor ideological and partisan differences in intensity of belief.
72% agree that higher health insurance premiums are a major factor contributing to higher prices throughout the economy, not just in health care, with strong agreement at 24%.

Health Insurers Seen as Most in Need of Fixing

34% say insurance companies are the part of the health care system most in need of fixing.
It was the top choice of all demographic groups with Democrats (39%) and younger voters (Gen Z: 37%, Millennials: 37%) the most focused on insurance companies.
Government health care programs (20%) and drug companies (17%) are second-tier targets for reform, with older voters (Gen X: 19%, Boomers: 19%) more focused on drug companies than younger.

Health Insurers Seen as Cost-Adders, Not Cost Savers

Respondents were asked to imagine the impact on health care prices if health insurance didn’t exist and everyone paid for health care directly out-of-pocket.
51% said prices would be less expensive, while 35% said prices would be more expensive.
Demographic differences in responses were small, suggesting that how respondents answered had more to do with their personal experiences than ideological or partisan worldview.

Who Voters Hold Responsible

Returning to the areas of most concern in the health care system, respondents were asked who was more responsible: the health insurance companies or the health care providers (including the doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, drug and medical device companies, and other organizations involved in providing and creating health care.)

58% of voters say health insurance companies are more responsible for the cost of premiums, including a majority or plurality among all demographic groups.
53% say health insurance companies are more responsible for out-of-pocket costs, including a majority or plurality among all demographic groups.
A plurality of voters also say health insurance companies are more responsible for prescription drug costs, coverage restrictions and delays to getting care.
Health care providers were seen as more responsible for quality and access challenges, not financial burdens.
Target voters – Unconverted MAGA and New Majority Undecideds and Leaners – were more inclined to blame both insurers and providers than other demographic groups for the cost of premiums and out-of-pocket costs, though more still blamed insurers.

The Bottom Line

Premiums are the central affordability concern, and voters across every demographic agree.

Insurance companies bear the blame: majorities say insurers are more responsible than providers for both premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

Notably, a majority believe health care would be cheaper without insurers in the mix. Voters support reform that directly confronts both the cost and the cause.

What’s Next

We will have more analysis from this survey identifying the health care reforms Americans say should be lawmakers’ top priorities, new data on apprenticeships, and more.

Get in touch with us anytime, and let’s make an impact together!

Leave a comment

Healthcare Costs: What Voters Really Want Changed

America's New Majority Project — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 11:03:01 GMT

Share America's New Majority Project

Key Takeaways

76% of voters say healthcare costs are on the wrong track.
93% say it is important to have clear, upfront prices for healthcare services, including any fees not covered by insurance. 84% support requiring providers to give patients this information.
70% support universal access to Health Savings Accounts.
55% support redirecting Obamacare subsidies directly to patients rather than insurers.

Healthcare costs rank #2 among voters’ economic concerns, with 76% saying they are on the wrong track.

Recently proposed reforms receive broad support. 84% support strengthening price transparency laws by requiring healthcare providers to post clear, upfront prices, including fees not covered by a patient’s insurance, and 70% support giving every American access to a Health Savings Account (HSA), putting healthcare dollars directly in patients’ hands.

Why it Matters

Voters aren’t just frustrated. Bipartisan majorities are angry, aligned, and demanding action. On healthcare, the public has already reached a verdict: it’s broken and needs to be fixed.

This is a rare moment when overwhelming public demand and transformative policy opportunity are in perfect alignment.

Price transparency is the foundation of reform, with sustained support. In a May 2023 America’s New Majority Project survey, it commanded 85% support and holds at 84% nearly three years later. 93% say price transparency it personally important. This isn’t a flash in the pan, it’s a consistent call for reform.

How to Use This Data

Advocates should focus their healthcare messaging on accountability, transparency, and patient control.

Click on the image below to view the full data or read the summary below.

84% Support Price Transparency and Advanced Explanation of Benefits

This includes 90% of Republicans, 78% of Democrats, and 83% of Independents.
93% say clear upfront prices are important to them personally, including 96% of Republicans, 92% of Independents, and 91% of Democrats.
Among target voters, 79% of Unconverted MAGA voters and 88% of New Majority voters support price transparency.

70% Say Everyone Should Have Access to a Health Savings Account

This includes 79% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats, and 62% of Independents.
There is no divide by gender. 71% of women and 69% of men support universal HSA access and 75% of both say it’s personally important.
Overall, 76% say HSA access is personally important, including 81% of Gen Z, 81% of Millennials, and 78% of Gen X.
Among target voters, 68% of Unconverted MAGA voters support universal HSA access, and 76% of New Majority voters support it.

55% Say Cut Out the Middleman—Send Healthcare Dollars Directly to Patients

This includes 73% of Republicans, 43% of Democrats, and 49% of Independents.
66% say it is important that subsidies go directly to eligible Americans rather than to insurance companies.
Among target voters, 59% of Unconverted MAGA voters support direct subsidies, and 64% of New Majority voters support it.

What Voters Would Do with a Health Savings Account and Direct Subsidies

40% choose a savings-oriented approach (save or invest 33% plus catastrophic plus save 8%) versus 25% for comprehensive insurance.
Younger voters are 3 to 6 times more likely than older voters to choose catastrophic-only coverage.

When You Give Patience the Money, Demand to See Prices Increases

73% say price transparency becomes more important once voters control the money. This includes 81% of Republicans, 72% of Democrats, and 67% of Independents.
73% of swing voters say price transparency is more important once they control the dollars, and middle-class voters hit 73%.

The Bottom Line

Price transparency, direct subsidies, and universal HSA access are three proposals that work as one system.

When voters have control over their healthcare dollars through HSAs and direct subsidies, demand for transparent pricing doesn’t fade, it intensifies. Nearly three in four say it becomes even more important. Support holds across party, gender, generation, and class.

The logic is simple. Once the money is in their hands, voters behave like consumers, and consumers demand to see prices before they buy. This isn’t a platform to sell. It’s one voters are already waiting for.

What’s Next

Stay tuned—in the coming days, we will be posting more findings on health care reform, as well as data on support for apprenticeship programs in the United States.

Get in touch with us anytime, and let’s make an impact together!

Leave a comment