Temperature Check

New polling shows little movement in presidential over the weekend; this is a time for The Depolarizers

This weekend was a time for reflection on America, on our values, and on what is precious. One read we recommend is Jeremiah Johnson on the purpose of liberalism, especially the closing:

As much as you can, resist the hysteria. Refuse to participate in it, refuse to make the polarization worse. The purpose of liberalism is to allow us to disagree with someone without discriminating against them, without harassing them, without killing them. It’s a precious thing, perhaps the most precious thing our civilization has achieved.

---

It is one thing to say “we should bring the temperature down” in American politics.

But what can you actually do to depolarize the political climate?

Earlier this year our team embarked on a new project to help us better understand political polarization, and how to combat its unhealthiest forms. The Depolarizers, which will launch later this month, engaged the top researchers studying politician polarization along with practitioners who are doing something about it.

After the shocking and abhorrent display of political violence in Pennsylvania, we don’t have the perfect words to say. But we know there is much to be done, experts pointing the way, and leaders worth elevating.

---

Polling Shows Slightest Movement

Yesterday (before the shooting), we wrote that:

Polling immediate reactions to the news can also be helpful given the wild swings of the political narrative driven by people who are, shall we say, “non-representative of voters.”

As the Twitter-addicted political class seesaws back and forth on the rumor mill, real-time data on voter attitudes provides a critical check on narrative imbalances.

We’ve released three polling memos over the past week, all of which have rebutted certain elements of the political insider narrative: demonstrating better methods to test alternative presidential nominees, asserting the overwhelming faith Democratic voters have in DNC delegates and the convention process, and the unfortunate dominance of viral videos in voter views of the Biden press conference.

That data is being collected as part of research that has gone on consistently through the last week. That means we’ve had a finger on the pulse of where voters are using the same method targeting the same people over time, allowing for such analysis.

Over the weekend, there was a lot of regrettable commentary on social media.

A view also emerged on the presidential election was that polling would be markedly different in the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt. Many commentators pointed to the sharp bump in favorability that President Ronald Reagan received following an assassination attempt in 1981, predicting a similar bump for former President Donald Trump.

As part of this ongoing research, we collected a large amount of likely voter survey data both before and after the attempted assassination on Saturday.

We surveyed 7,042 likely voters from July 8-14, and broke the results out by before (4,616) and after (2,426) the attempted assassination. Responses received between 6:15pm EST and 9:00pm EST on July 13th were not included.

Results showed an increase in favorability for Trump of around 3% and an increase in Trump’s lead over President Joe Biden in the presidential head to head by around a quarter of that amount (0.7%). Biden also received a similar bump in favorability.

These numbers could change in the coming days, of course.

But take a breath before consuming any narratives coming off Twitter or out of DC. The full memo is here.

---

Polarization Lab Rats

Sometimes it feels like American voters have been undergoing a decade-long experiment in political polarization. Luckily, there are some researchers making good on it. And - similar to what our recent polling memos have demonstrated - the narrative is often different than reality.

The Polarization Lab, a cross-university research lab at Dartmouth, Penn, and Stanford studying democratic attitudes, has new research out from last week showing just how nonexistent the support is for intense political violence. But it doesn’t feel that way, because Americans believe their opponents feel differently:

It may be worth being skeptical when you encounter harshly negative headlines, many of which are inflated:

Last cycle in the New York Times, we warned of the risks from consuming too much “polarization porn”.

Consuming misleading information about how divided Americans stops us from taking action. Here’s Nate Silver on what happens when uncertainty mixes with fear:

Uncertainty tends to freeze people in place, especially when abetted by fear. They sometimes become convinced that they’re trapped in a doom loop from which there’s no escape, even when there’s an exit ramp that they’re too myopic to recognize.

There are many exit ramps we can take. There is work to be done, and leaders to elevate.

Here’s one I found helpful: watch and amplify Josh Shapiro’s humanity.