April 27 · Elections
Survey Says Voters Want Fight. Research Shows Exactly What Voters Interpret as “Strong” and “Weak”
How can we apply this to our strategy?
Bryan Bennett of Loft Beck Strategies released a national survey on April 27 that asked Democrats and independents which mattered more in evaluating a candidate, fight or policy agreement. Sixty-nine percent picked fight. He asked whether fight or authenticity mattered more. Sixty-eight percent picked fight. Liberal Democrats picked fight over policy by twenty-eight points. Double haters, voters who hold an unfavorable view of both parties, picked fight over policy by twenty-six. Across every category Bennett tested, voters did not care about platform. They cared about willingness to fight. Which is Idiocracy-level reasoning, but we are here to win, and when we bring this sort of data into our calculations we win more elections. When we don’t, we don’t.
Other recent polling found the same thing in different words. The Harvard Youth Poll asked young voters for one word to describe Democrats. Fifty-eight percent chose a negative one. The most common, generated without prompting, was weak. The Strength in Numbers/Verasight survey asked Democratic voters in their own words what their party did recently that upset them. The largest category of response, thirty percent, said the party was too weak, too cautious, or not fighting hard enough.
Democratic voters still like Kamala Harris. They give her a sixty-five point net favorability rating among their own. However, her strength rating among Democrats runs eighteen points behind her favorability. Biden’s gap reaches thirty-eight points. Schumer’s is twenty. Jeffries sixteen. Affection runs ahead of respect across the institutional leadership, by margins Democratic voters generated themselves. Keep in mind that this is just among self-identified party voters, where favorability for institutionalists is going to be the most favorable.
Two political scientists at Aarhus University in Denmark have spent the last decade figuring out what voters mean when they call a politician strong or weak. Lasse Laustsen and Michael Bang Petersen publish in Political Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology, and Current Opinion in Psychology, and their findings replicate across countries and predict actual electoral outcomes. The cues are specific.
Voters read strength when a politician names the opponent out loud, takes an aggressive posture rather than a conciliatory one, uses language that signals willingness to use power to its fullest extent. Voters read strength when a politician refuses to back down publicly when backing down would be easier, violates norms of decorum when the situation calls for it, doesn’t mince words, doesn’t ask the public to wait for the next election, and demonstrates capacity for aggression on behalf of voters against the people harming them.
Voters read weakness when a politician retreats into process language, appeals to norms and institutions as the response to norm violations, hedges visibly, announces fights and then does not fight them, treats the opposition as good-faith partners while voters perceive them as adversaries, and prioritizes decorum over outcome.
To put it in plain English. The majority of Americans feel we are actively and existentially threatened by the current regime. We don’t want “our team” shaking hands with our attackers or leaving any tool of power unused. In fact, we would like to be on the offense. That gives a nice dopamine hit and gives people something to be proud of rather than a sense of repeated and habitual disappointment.
The voting record of the second Trump term reads like a how-to manual for the second list. On January 20, 2025, hours after Trump took the oath, twelve Senate Democrats joined Republicans to pass the Laken Riley Act: Catherine Cortez Masto, John Fetterman, Ruben Gallego, Maggie Hassan, Mark Kelly, Jon Ossoff, Gary Peters, Jacky Rosen, Jeanne Shaheen, Elissa Slotkin, Mark Warner, and Raphael Warnock. On March 14, 2025, ten Senate Democrats voted to break the filibuster and clear the path for the Republican continuing resolution Schumer had publicly opposed the day before. In November 2025, eight more Senate Democrats joined Republicans to end the longest shutdown in American history without securing the ACA tax credit extension Democrats had spent forty days demanding.
Now look at the reverse. Well, you can’t, because there is no comparable list. No Republican senators crossed the aisle to advance Democratic legislation in 2025. Not on the budget. Not on healthcare. Not on immigration. Not on labor. The big votes that determine outcomes exclusively split in one direction. That direction is the fascist one.
Now watch Bernie Sanders point at a specific billionaire and call him by name. Watch Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez refuse to equivocate on the facts we can see plain as day. Watch J.B. Pritzker say the word fascism on camera and refuse to walk it back when a reporter offers him the chance. Watch Mark Kelly hold town halls in Arizona counties Trump won and stay in the room when MAGA voters start getting triggered.
These folks share some policy, but more importantly they appear willing to ruffle feathers or loudly disagree. Sanders is over 80 years young and has been outspoken for decades before reaching the national zeitgeist in 2016. Kelly is a former astronaut who talks about both border security and human rights without hedging on either. Ocasio-Cortez came up through Democratic Socialists of America. Pritzker is a populist billionaire. What they share is behavior. The behavior matches every cue the research identifies as strength. The institutional figures, and the dozen Democrats willing to deliver Republican wins on demand, match every cue the research identifies as weakness.
The behaviors voters report as weakness are the same behaviors the institutional Democratic Party treats as professional. Floor decorum. Communications discipline. Bipartisan deference. Process-language responses to substantive attacks. Refusing to bring long-shot lawsuits or introduce long-shot bills (a strategy that has reliably benefited the GOP agenda). Refusing to expand the powers available to them when those powers could be used to defend the public interest, even as Republicans expand their own powers constantly. Voters in North Carolina and Wisconsin watched their state Republican parties strip authority from incoming Democratic governors before those governors could take office. Voters did not watch Democrats do the same in reverse, anywhere, ever. Not once.
Are we not worth it? Are norms and decorum more important than our lives?
The list goes on. Caucus loyalty over public confrontation, which Republicans enforce ruthlessly and which Democrats treat as optional. The party trains its members in those norms. The research tells us voters read those exact behaviors as the reason they cannot stand the party. The professional norms of the institutional party and the strength perceptions of the institutional party’s own voters are pointing in opposite directions.
Voters say the institutional Democratic Party is weak. The research tells us what that means in practical psycho-behavioral terms. The people running the party keep repeating the exact same behaviors. That looks confusing only if you assume their decisions are driven by winning elections. The reality is that their behavior is driven by donor networks, personal relationships, and retaining key allies, even when that means supporting decisions that are wildly unpopular with the public. They are doing what they think will keep them in power, and so far it has worked. Congressional incumbents won reelection at a rate of 97 percent in 2024. Until that number changes, their behavior will not. Until that number changes, they have no reason to believe their current strategy is failing.
Go find a primary to vote in.
For more, scroll lower on this page and download a free PDF or purchase a physical copy of Grab Them By The EARR: How to get politicians to do what you want.
Despite having millions of readers and tens of thousands of activists, yesterday’s article did not reach the ten subscriber signups we need to keep The ER running.
A dozen free booklets, three free books, four pieces of model legislation, academic research, dozens of articles per month, and thousands of daily effective activists all thrive with ten people becoming subscribers per article.
Do not skip a meal or rent for this. We need your activism, and you need to be surviving to be in the fight.
If you can be one of the ten today, become a member, an activist, and keep this alive for everyone.
Check out our books, booklets, and model legislation for more info.
Toppling Tyrants: A Field Guide to Dismantling American Fascism — physical copy / free download
Conservatism: America’s Personality Disorder — physical copy / free download
Intro to Soft Secession — physical copy / free download
Oppositional Federalism and You — physical copy / free download
Grab Them By The E.A.R.R.: How to Get Politicians to Do What You Want —physical copy / free download
More Free downloads:
Soft Secession: 100 Policies That Pass
Being Dangerous: Go From Activist to Operative
Soft Secession: 100 Policies That Pass
All Four Completed Model Legislation Bills
The Opposition Guide to Tax Warfare
Six-Panel Soft Secession Brochure
Subscribe by email →