Last week, our friends at Echelon Insights—a Republican-leaning polling and data firm—released an update to their Political Tribes project. Unlike similar efforts to build out typologies of America’s political tribes, such as those from More In Common
I am a bit skeptical about the economic questions and how much true agreement there is. When $ was put on environmental issues the vast majority was not willing to pay much attention all.
Yes Americans are a complicated bunch and, on the political spectrum, come in many diverse shades and hues of Red, Blue and even purple. When has that not been true, especially during the past 60 years and probably just as true, if not more so, during the nation's founding and infancy.
It's precisely why our Framers, possessing a collective wisdom far exceeding today's social and political scientists and pollsters, seem to have understood that a constitutional republic is only as legitimate, strong and representative as a majority of eligible citizens willingness to coalesce and compromise in support of it, and that remains just as true today as the numbers, gender, race and age of voters has fortunately widened.
So while both major parties have almost always experienced factional in-fighting, their sharpest and seemingly irreconcilable divergence remains between the paries. And in 2025, that is conspicuously a bigger threat to the Democratic Party's future viability, with a full 2 out of 3 likely voters expressing a loss of confidence and trust in the Left-tilting party's ability and competency to govern.
My observations in WA State about the Democrats are HIGHLY negative, and not much better as I look toward the other Washington. The Republicans definitely have their problems, but I don't trust the Democratic Party farther than I can throw the capitol buildings in either Olympia or D.C. The level of deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy is outrageous.
Former Dem, now independent. Today I'm with the right on 6 of 9 cultural issues, 7 of 9 economic issues (but persuadable depending on the details), and split 3-3 on the institutional side. Persuadable because unlike the "progressives," I think critically and am nuanced on lots of issues. I really don't think the "progressives" have any fixed principles other than a lust for power over others (never themselves), and tragically, they control the Democratic Party.
It occurs to me that there is another reason I call myself persuadable. It goes back to my Midwest roots. If there is one single thing that almost everyone who was born and raised there or has lived there for a long time respects to the point of reverence, it is pragmatism. Midwesterners are in favor of whatever works. The rest is whipped cream on dogshit as far as I'm concerned. Democrats, if you want me back, make shit work. Make sense, or forget it.
Labels , labels, labels. Leave me out of them please. Pollsters want to put each of us into some tribe? Don't really trust this study or its polls, but do find the information quite interesting.
In the long run economic issues will be more important to a large majority (80+%) of voters than cultural issues. Sometime during the 2030s - at the latest - we'll have to decide how to deal with the shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare funding because those programs aren't actuarially viable under the current setup. A huge majority of the public - including a majority of Republican voters - opposes any reductions in benefits for those programs. The only solution will be some combination of raising taxes and borrowing to provide those benefits.
Anti-tax dogma will very likely remain a pillar of Republican politics, so eventually left-wing Democrats and all their craziness will come to power. Look for complete Democratic control of the federal government, possibly in 2028 or 2032, by 2036 at the latest. America is destined to go hard Left forever unless Republicans get realistic about the political realities of SS and Medicare.
We just endured a hard Left Presidency. The only President remotely similar to Biden, in recent US history, was Carter. After which, a Rep sat in the WH for 12 years. It could have easily been 16.
Dems sometimes seem to believe Trump is immortal. The man is nearly 80 years old and term limited. If he does not die in office, he will greatly exceed male US life expectancy for a person of his size.
In any event, Trump is history in 3 1/2 years. What Dems should really fear is not Trump, but a Marco Rubio Pres. or VP candidacy, that expands Trump's Hispanic vote share by 10 points or more.
When push comes to shove, Social Security and Medicare will be shored up. Look for Reps to note, $1.1 trillion federal tax dollars a year are devoted to welfare. 54% of all naturalized citizens, legal immigrants and immigrants residing in the US illegally, utilize at least 1 welfare program. This means their welfare use rate is 30% higher than native born US citizens. Dems do not yet realize, the issue if immigration is not going away. It is going to morph into an economic one.
I am skeptical that Echelon Insights is Republican-leaning. Those poll questions strawman the Republican argument, which makes me think they are really democrats.
I am skeptical that a Medicare for all, abortion for none tribe really exists.
There should be a tribe for generally small government people who think the experts have an angle (either economic or ideological) and therefore need to be taken with a grain of salt. People who don't think women are disadvantaged, aren't bothered by abortion or gay marriage, and who want to see less military involvement overseas. They also think regulation is a front for rent-seeking or part of the constant campaign for government to control more of our lives.
Why then do we have so many hard right/left on each side as elected leaders? How do we get the two parties to start nominating candidates more in tune with the electorate? Isn't that where the rubber meets the road?
Should the parties start controlling who their nominees are in light of American values and not party values? And if so, what are the criteria? This indicates to me that voting systems such as ranked choice and not party specific should be the way to go. I doubt the parties would give up so much of their control over who gets elected. And should polls like the one written about here determine who the candidates should be? Would that bring more citizens out to vote?
One key problem the report outlines is that the hardest partisans are also the likeliest to vote in elections. It's not necessarily a new development, but Echelon put some more meat on the bones of that phenomenon. To some extent, if you want to continue having voters choose politicians rather than reverting to the parties doing it themselves (and to be clear, the parties do actually still do this in some states), this is a reality you have to contend with. And our social-media-dominated era, which delivers the most clicks and eyeballs to people who are bomb-throwers rather than behind-the-scenes dealmakers, helps create perverse incentives for candidates and elected officials.
I'm not sure how you deal with the latter issue, but there are some reforms that might help dilute the power of the fringes in elections. One is open primaries, which allow voters of any affiliation to cast a ballot in whichever party's primary they desire. So in a deep-blue state, where a Democrat is almost certain to win a general election, independents and Republicans could vote in a Democratic primary to support the less ideological candidate (and the same is true for indies and Dems in GOP-dominated states). I'm also a fan of ranked-choice voting, which I know can raise some people's hackles. I still think there is enough evidence to support the idea that this reform encourages candidates to reach beyond their base in order to shore up support from voters who didn't pick them as their top choice. This often has the effect of forcing more ideological candidates to moderate at least a bit or risk not winning a majority of the vote by the end of the process.
Lots of longtime observers of American politics have written about other (practical) ways to curb the influence of the minority wings, but those are just a couple that have resonated with me.
Do the non hardest not vote because there is no one worth voting for. The hardest are the most likely to vote because the issues being used are those the hardest want to make decisions on. Bottom line, do issues determine who will vote or do voters determine what the issues will be?
The reason is that, to a significant extent, you need to start with unalloyed ideas. Then you go back and forth and find a way. A fair amount of the time, the pure thing, or close to it, is the right thing. The key is knowing when it isn't.
Polling seems to be a means to put voters in boxes. The problem with the above, is that it appears to give equal weight to all issues polled. For example, Gay Marriage is settled. Even those who may agree or disagree strongly, are unlikely to vote on the matter now.
Ditto for abortion. The year before the election, Dems repeatedly predicted Reps would quickly ban abortion nationally, if Trump won. It did not matter such a ban was politically impossible, and may violate Dobbs. Many Dem women were absolutely sure abortion would be banned nationally, the day after Trump took office. Abortion is now in issue WITSEC. No one utters the word, except very, very rarely in relation to a State election. Abortion does not carry nearly the importance it once enjoyed in federal elections.
Likewise, for female equal rights. It has been the law of the land for 60 years. An army of Plaintiff's lawyers stands at the ready to to bring suit, the moment a women feels discrimination. It seems unlikely to be the issue that sways many votes. Even concern for Climate Change seems to have hit its' pinnacle, and is now in retreat.
On the other hand, new issues now enjoy far more importance, than just a few years ago. Few Americans gave immigration much thought, preBiden. Then Dems purposefully dissolved the Southern Border and 10 or 12 unvetted million people entered the US. Deportation methods have caused some to believe only violent criminal migrants should ever be deported. Overall, however, immigration is now of far more importance then pre 2020, and would seem to benefit Reps.
Likewise, for child social engineering. A decade ago children being secretly socially transitioned in school was unknown. Child sex change operations, and trans females in formally, exclusively female spaces and athletic fields barely existed, let alone enough to be an election issue. That subject is now very important for many parents, and would seem to overwhelmingly benefit Reps.
Economics is always the most important election issue. It is also rarely predictable this far prior to an election. Labeling people is academically interesting, but may carry less weight than a decade ago. For polling to be helpful it would seem far fewer topics need to polled, after the most important election issues have been identified.
Visit EthicalGovtNow.org Evaluate. Decide for yourself. Subscribe for only $12. annually. A new political tribe has just been born. Please help us grow as soon as you can.
None of this seems to comport with anything I observe in my big group of liberal and conservative friends, associates and family. I don't trust this study at all. Republican-leaning polling means establishment-leaning bias. Liberals drug the Overton Window so far left. Those Republicans dropping out are not populists, whatever that means, they are just rejecting the establishment for not holding firm and allowing the left drift of everything... social and economic.
I am a bit skeptical about the economic questions and how much true agreement there is. When $ was put on environmental issues the vast majority was not willing to pay much attention all.
Yes Americans are a complicated bunch and, on the political spectrum, come in many diverse shades and hues of Red, Blue and even purple. When has that not been true, especially during the past 60 years and probably just as true, if not more so, during the nation's founding and infancy.
It's precisely why our Framers, possessing a collective wisdom far exceeding today's social and political scientists and pollsters, seem to have understood that a constitutional republic is only as legitimate, strong and representative as a majority of eligible citizens willingness to coalesce and compromise in support of it, and that remains just as true today as the numbers, gender, race and age of voters has fortunately widened.
So while both major parties have almost always experienced factional in-fighting, their sharpest and seemingly irreconcilable divergence remains between the paries. And in 2025, that is conspicuously a bigger threat to the Democratic Party's future viability, with a full 2 out of 3 likely voters expressing a loss of confidence and trust in the Left-tilting party's ability and competency to govern.
My observations in WA State about the Democrats are HIGHLY negative, and not much better as I look toward the other Washington. The Republicans definitely have their problems, but I don't trust the Democratic Party farther than I can throw the capitol buildings in either Olympia or D.C. The level of deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy is outrageous.
Former Dem, now independent. Today I'm with the right on 6 of 9 cultural issues, 7 of 9 economic issues (but persuadable depending on the details), and split 3-3 on the institutional side. Persuadable because unlike the "progressives," I think critically and am nuanced on lots of issues. I really don't think the "progressives" have any fixed principles other than a lust for power over others (never themselves), and tragically, they control the Democratic Party.
It occurs to me that there is another reason I call myself persuadable. It goes back to my Midwest roots. If there is one single thing that almost everyone who was born and raised there or has lived there for a long time respects to the point of reverence, it is pragmatism. Midwesterners are in favor of whatever works. The rest is whipped cream on dogshit as far as I'm concerned. Democrats, if you want me back, make shit work. Make sense, or forget it.
Labels , labels, labels. Leave me out of them please. Pollsters want to put each of us into some tribe? Don't really trust this study or its polls, but do find the information quite interesting.
In the long run economic issues will be more important to a large majority (80+%) of voters than cultural issues. Sometime during the 2030s - at the latest - we'll have to decide how to deal with the shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare funding because those programs aren't actuarially viable under the current setup. A huge majority of the public - including a majority of Republican voters - opposes any reductions in benefits for those programs. The only solution will be some combination of raising taxes and borrowing to provide those benefits.
Anti-tax dogma will very likely remain a pillar of Republican politics, so eventually left-wing Democrats and all their craziness will come to power. Look for complete Democratic control of the federal government, possibly in 2028 or 2032, by 2036 at the latest. America is destined to go hard Left forever unless Republicans get realistic about the political realities of SS and Medicare.
We just endured a hard Left Presidency. The only President remotely similar to Biden, in recent US history, was Carter. After which, a Rep sat in the WH for 12 years. It could have easily been 16.
Dems sometimes seem to believe Trump is immortal. The man is nearly 80 years old and term limited. If he does not die in office, he will greatly exceed male US life expectancy for a person of his size.
In any event, Trump is history in 3 1/2 years. What Dems should really fear is not Trump, but a Marco Rubio Pres. or VP candidacy, that expands Trump's Hispanic vote share by 10 points or more.
When push comes to shove, Social Security and Medicare will be shored up. Look for Reps to note, $1.1 trillion federal tax dollars a year are devoted to welfare. 54% of all naturalized citizens, legal immigrants and immigrants residing in the US illegally, utilize at least 1 welfare program. This means their welfare use rate is 30% higher than native born US citizens. Dems do not yet realize, the issue if immigration is not going away. It is going to morph into an economic one.
Social Security is easy: Remove the income cap. It will happen sooner or later.
If the government needs to raise taxes, it will be in the form of a VAT in exchange for some lowering of income tax rates.
I am skeptical that Echelon Insights is Republican-leaning. Those poll questions strawman the Republican argument, which makes me think they are really democrats.
I am skeptical that a Medicare for all, abortion for none tribe really exists.
There should be a tribe for generally small government people who think the experts have an angle (either economic or ideological) and therefore need to be taken with a grain of salt. People who don't think women are disadvantaged, aren't bothered by abortion or gay marriage, and who want to see less military involvement overseas. They also think regulation is a front for rent-seeking or part of the constant campaign for government to control more of our lives.
Why then do we have so many hard right/left on each side as elected leaders? How do we get the two parties to start nominating candidates more in tune with the electorate? Isn't that where the rubber meets the road?
Should the parties start controlling who their nominees are in light of American values and not party values? And if so, what are the criteria? This indicates to me that voting systems such as ranked choice and not party specific should be the way to go. I doubt the parties would give up so much of their control over who gets elected. And should polls like the one written about here determine who the candidates should be? Would that bring more citizens out to vote?
One key problem the report outlines is that the hardest partisans are also the likeliest to vote in elections. It's not necessarily a new development, but Echelon put some more meat on the bones of that phenomenon. To some extent, if you want to continue having voters choose politicians rather than reverting to the parties doing it themselves (and to be clear, the parties do actually still do this in some states), this is a reality you have to contend with. And our social-media-dominated era, which delivers the most clicks and eyeballs to people who are bomb-throwers rather than behind-the-scenes dealmakers, helps create perverse incentives for candidates and elected officials.
I'm not sure how you deal with the latter issue, but there are some reforms that might help dilute the power of the fringes in elections. One is open primaries, which allow voters of any affiliation to cast a ballot in whichever party's primary they desire. So in a deep-blue state, where a Democrat is almost certain to win a general election, independents and Republicans could vote in a Democratic primary to support the less ideological candidate (and the same is true for indies and Dems in GOP-dominated states). I'm also a fan of ranked-choice voting, which I know can raise some people's hackles. I still think there is enough evidence to support the idea that this reform encourages candidates to reach beyond their base in order to shore up support from voters who didn't pick them as their top choice. This often has the effect of forcing more ideological candidates to moderate at least a bit or risk not winning a majority of the vote by the end of the process.
Lots of longtime observers of American politics have written about other (practical) ways to curb the influence of the minority wings, but those are just a couple that have resonated with me.
Do the non hardest not vote because there is no one worth voting for. The hardest are the most likely to vote because the issues being used are those the hardest want to make decisions on. Bottom line, do issues determine who will vote or do voters determine what the issues will be?
The reason is that, to a significant extent, you need to start with unalloyed ideas. Then you go back and forth and find a way. A fair amount of the time, the pure thing, or close to it, is the right thing. The key is knowing when it isn't.
Polling seems to be a means to put voters in boxes. The problem with the above, is that it appears to give equal weight to all issues polled. For example, Gay Marriage is settled. Even those who may agree or disagree strongly, are unlikely to vote on the matter now.
Ditto for abortion. The year before the election, Dems repeatedly predicted Reps would quickly ban abortion nationally, if Trump won. It did not matter such a ban was politically impossible, and may violate Dobbs. Many Dem women were absolutely sure abortion would be banned nationally, the day after Trump took office. Abortion is now in issue WITSEC. No one utters the word, except very, very rarely in relation to a State election. Abortion does not carry nearly the importance it once enjoyed in federal elections.
Likewise, for female equal rights. It has been the law of the land for 60 years. An army of Plaintiff's lawyers stands at the ready to to bring suit, the moment a women feels discrimination. It seems unlikely to be the issue that sways many votes. Even concern for Climate Change seems to have hit its' pinnacle, and is now in retreat.
On the other hand, new issues now enjoy far more importance, than just a few years ago. Few Americans gave immigration much thought, preBiden. Then Dems purposefully dissolved the Southern Border and 10 or 12 unvetted million people entered the US. Deportation methods have caused some to believe only violent criminal migrants should ever be deported. Overall, however, immigration is now of far more importance then pre 2020, and would seem to benefit Reps.
Likewise, for child social engineering. A decade ago children being secretly socially transitioned in school was unknown. Child sex change operations, and trans females in formally, exclusively female spaces and athletic fields barely existed, let alone enough to be an election issue. That subject is now very important for many parents, and would seem to overwhelmingly benefit Reps.
Economics is always the most important election issue. It is also rarely predictable this far prior to an election. Labeling people is academically interesting, but may carry less weight than a decade ago. For polling to be helpful it would seem far fewer topics need to polled, after the most important election issues have been identified.
The Establishment has failed. This accounts for the strength of Hard Right and Hard Left. This will only grow until some sort of new synthesis emerges
Visit EthicalGovtNow.org Evaluate. Decide for yourself. Subscribe for only $12. annually. A new political tribe has just been born. Please help us grow as soon as you can.
None of this seems to comport with anything I observe in my big group of liberal and conservative friends, associates and family. I don't trust this study at all. Republican-leaning polling means establishment-leaning bias. Liberals drug the Overton Window so far left. Those Republicans dropping out are not populists, whatever that means, they are just rejecting the establishment for not holding firm and allowing the left drift of everything... social and economic.