Internal Research Library

What is a qualbaord? 

• A study using a 4-day moderated, asynchronous online research discussion where participants were grouped by political affiliation for approximately one hour per day.

Key Findings

• Responses throughout the boards show that majority of the parties agree costs should be lowered, but participants clash sharply on the method. Democrats favor data-driven pro-clean energy messaging: The majority agreed with Whitehouse, valuing evidence, graphics, and a cohesive argument that clean energy lowers costs over time, while viewing Trump and traditional energy supporters skeptically.

• Republicans prioritize realism and reliability: Most aligned with Wright, emphasizing the practical limits of wind and solar, grid stability, and distrust of partisan attacks, seeing traditional energy as essential.

• Independents weigh both facts and practicality: Opinions were split but leaned slightly toward Whitehouse for factual data, while also respecting Wright’s caution about the situational nature of renewables.

• Respondents directly link their personal financial precarity to energy pricing, seeing it as an urgent cost-of-living issue, behind the cost of groceries and housing.

• Blame is not abstract: voters readily acknowledge corporate greed and enabling from politicians. Participants primarily blame energy price hikes on utility monopolies, corporate greed, and a lack of effective government oversight. This resentment cuts across party lines (Democrat, Republican, and Independent), reinforcing a pervasive sense of helplessness and lack of control over an essential service.

• Governors-elect Mikie Sherrill (NJ) and Abigail Spanberger (VA) are more trusted on handling rising costs (D+24) than Democrats in Congress are (D+17). This pattern appears across affordability issues. New Jersey voters trust Sherrill over her opponent Jack Ciattarelli by 18 points on the cost of housing (57-39), and Virginia voters trust Spanberger over her opponent Winsome Earle-Sears by 24 points on the cost of groceries and food (58-34). These same voters trust Democrats in Congress over Republicans by just 11 points on the cost of housing (52-41 in New Jersey) and 14 points on the cost of groceries and food (54-40 in Virginia).

• Food and energy are key for different reasons. Democrats' strategy on food should be across the board, while energy is critical with specific groups. In New Jersey and Virginia, barely a majority of voters recall hearing the Democratic candidates addressing the cost of food and groceries (53%), while less than half recall hearing the Republican candidates talking about the issue (43%). Voters trust Governors-elect Sherrill and Spanberger on the cost of groceries by 23 points and trust Democrats in Congress by 15 points. Democrats should push this advantage. Meanwhile, Republicans face difficult terrain on the cost of living and are less trusted on all of the affordability concerns we tested. The only issue where Republicans overperform partisanship was on energy, where the advantage Democrats in Congress have is 3 points. Energy costs are a particular concern for typical persuasion targets and older voters. Sherrill and Spanberger effectively took control of the issue (D+12 on trust over utility costs), offering a roadmap for candidates to engage on this issue in order to win. Democratic leaders should craft distinct strategies on these two issues to help candidates win in 2026.

• Attacking on high utility bills and clean energy cuts is critical; ignoring energy and utilities is a mistake that could cost candidates. Energy costs will rise next year and are a top issue for voters Democrats can win. Governors-elect Sherrill and Spanberger demonstrated this last week. Winning campaigns in the battleground will copy their approach to turn the table on Republican attacks that are sure to come. Going on offense on energy is how to slam shut Republicans' only way to contest who to trust on the cost of living. Attacking rising utility prices in earned media is a winning strategy to take control of the issue and keep pressing a Democratic advantage on affordability. There is plenty of progress that can be made with groups such as seniors (D-1), Hispanic voters (D+4), and noncollege women (D+6) to increase trust in Democrats just as Governors-elect Sherrill and Spanberger did this fall.

Maxdiff findings:

• Elite health harms are top of mind for voters. The top worries include: pharma companies putting profits over people (72%), government favoring corporate interests (72%), and government overreach into personal health decisions (71%).

• Affordability and cost of living-related health pressures also break through. This includes: access to affordable health care (70%), rising insurance premiums (69%), and the cost of electricity during extreme weather (68%). 

• Issues related to chemical exposure and environmental health impacts generate about average concern. It’s possible that these are issues that people feel, but are not yet as urgent relative to some of these other elite/affordability issues. It’s worth noting that there tends to be more differentiation here by partisanship and MAHA identification. 

• Similarly, issues that point to a decline in trust in health systems perform more middling. This isn’t just tied to vaccines but to broader doubts about care and medical institutions, including: pharma influence over doctors and research (63%), safety of medical treatments (56%), doctors who don’t listen or provide adequate care (51%).

• The lowest-salience issues tend to be more niche or low-visibility risks. This includes issues such as seed oils in our food (14%), gas stove pollution (22%), microplastics in clothing or toys (31-37%), and toxic chemicals in pet products (30%). It’s possible that these issues feel too abstract or distant from people’s daily lives to generate strong or immediate concern.

Polling findings:

• Voters across the board have deep concerns about the overall safety of what they eat, buy, and use in daily life and distrust the institutions meant to protect them. 

• Widespread distrust in medical professionals, scientists, and official health institutions  has splintered where voters turn for health information.

• People feel failed by people in power - both political and corporate. Voters don’t believe that either are doing enough to keep us safe from harmful chemicals. Similarly, assessments of both Trump and RFK Jr. on health and well being skew negative. 

• Economic strain is amplifying voters’ frustration with a system they already distrust. Fewer than one in four voters say it’s not too expensive to find healthy food and products for their families, and the rest are split evenly between blaming corporate greed and inflation, tariffs, and government policy under Trump for driving up costs.

• MAHA’s core ideas reach far beyond those who explicitly identify with the movement. Less than a fifth of voters say they support MAHA, but almost a third agree with many of its views. 

Testing findings:

• As a reminder, for this portion of the research, instead of a traditional RCT, we asked respondents who saw the videos we tested 3 follow-ups, including:

  • How personally relevant did you find this video?

  • How much did it make you want to learn more about this topic?

  • To what extent do you agree with the following statement? I trust the information presented in the video.”

• For each of these 3 questions, voters responded most positively to these 3 videos

• @VanHari on News Nation 

  • 77% find the video personally relevant 

  • 65% express at least some interest to learn more

  • 77% trust the information presented

• @Iamjasyra - snacks for daughter 

  • 75% find the video personally relevant 

  • 69% express at least some interest to learn more

  • 75% trust the information presented

• @blossomandbranchfarm - health problems not about food dyes 

  • 75% find the video personally relevant 

  • 68% express at least some interest to learn more

  • 78% trust the information presented.

Voters believe that their elected leaders can have an impact on electricity costs, though there is room to increase intensity.

• A majority of voters also agree that utility CEOs and the GOP are actively working to make it harder to build new solar and wind, though they are a bit more skeptical about this than oil ang gas CEOs. Importantly, voters are more inclined to believe it is true that Republicans are doing so when Trump is included.

• • “Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers” – 55% true, 6.28 mean

  • “Republican lawmakers” – 53% true, 6.02 mean

  • “Power company CEOs” – 57% true, 6.14 mean

  • “Utility company CEOs” – 57% true, 6.08 mean.

• Nearly half (47%) say that the president and Congress can have a lot of impact on the cost that people like them pay for electricity, while 89% say that they can have at least some impact on these costs. Interestingly, these results are exactly the same for their governor and state legislatures – something that is not true about many other costs (there, geneally, voters see the federal government having more ability to impact costs).

Voters think that efforts by Republican lawmakers, monopoly utility companies, and Big Oil CEOs to undermine wind and solar projects are to blame for higher electricity prices.

• Voters initially believe that electeds can have even more impact on health care and insurance (61% a lot), housing (58%), groceries (55%) and gas (54%), though electricity beats childcare (36%) and clothing (28%).

• Our messaging increases the perception that the FEDERAL government can have an impact on electricity costs, boosting the percentage saying “a lot” by 9 percent, to 56%. Given the framing of our messaging, it’s not a surprise that the messaging had zero impact on perceptions about state government.

• Relatedly, out of all the statements tested, voters are most likely to say that the statement “Decisions by Congress about whether and how much the country invests in different sources of energy have a real impact on the electricity rates I pay” is true (71% true/6-10 on a 0-10 scale, MEAN 6.97)

Voters believe in the power of clean energy to address cost and demand concerns.

• They say that “adding more wind and solar power to the electricity grid will help keep my electricity rates lower” (63% believe this statement to be true, 6.50 MEAN on a 1-10 scale).

• Even without invoking AI data centers, voters say that now, with energy prices high and electricity demand rising, is the time to produce more clean energy: “With energy prices already high and electricity demand rising, now is the time to produce more clean energy like wind and solar, not less” (67%, 6.85) vs. “With energy prices already high and electricity demand rising because of AI data centers, now is the time to produce more clean energy like wind and solar, not less (66%, 6.95).

Texas homeowners are very concerned about the cost of their home insurance premiums. 

• 88% of homeowners say their home insurance premiums have increased over the last 5 years, including 51% who say they’ve increased significantly.

• Two-thirds also (65%) are very concerned the cost of their home insurance will go up in the next few years and homeowners are far more concerned about the cost of their coverage than the extent of its coverage, customer service, or the risk of losing their coverage. 

• Home insurance is seen as contributing to rising home costs. Over three quarters of Texas voters (78%) say that purchasing home insurance is typically required to get a mortgage in Texas and the same share says home insurance is a factor in the overall cost of buying a home, with 44% saying it is a significant factor.

Voters blame Texas elected officials for not doing enough to address the cost of home insurance premiums.

• • 71% say Texas state government policies are responsible for rising home insurance premiums and 91% think Texas elected officials should do more to reduce them, including 69% who feel that way strongly.

  • Just 16% of Texas voters have flood insurance despite nearly three-quarters (73%) being concerned about extreme weather becoming more frequent in Texas.

Most Texas voters think extreme weather is becoming more frequent and think climate change is a contributing factor.

• • Two-thirds say that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and 57% think they are being more intense and frequent because of climate change.

  • 73% are concerned about extreme weather like hurricanes, floods, and wildfires becoming more frequent in Texas in the next 5 years, with nearly half (46%) very concerned.

  • 66% say extreme weather due to climate change is responsible for the rise in home insurance premiums in Texas.

Messaging

• • The share of homeowners very concerned about the cost of home insurance premiums rose by 6 points to 69%

  • The share believing climate change is responsible for the rise in home insurance premiums in TX rose by 11 points, to 77%.

  • Home insurance proposals that emerged as most popular (each making 69% of voters much more likely to support a candidate who supports that proposal):

• • 1. Ban employees of the Texas Department of Insurance from having any financial interests in the insurance companies they regulate

    2. Require the Texas Department of Insurance to hold insurance companies accountable for false advertising

    3. Require the Texas Department of Insurance to hold insurance companies accountable for not paying claims in full

Voters see the Republican budget bill’s energy plan as a direct threat to their wallets, energy

reliability, and the broader economy.

• After learning about the energy policies in the budget bill, 61% of voters say the plan would hurt average Americans, and 59% say it would hurt them and their families personally. Black voters (67%) and women under 50 (69%) are especially likely to expect it to hurt them personally, but concern cuts across groups, including a majority of white voters without a college degree (55%).

• 62% of voters expect electricity prices to rise if the Republican budget bill passes. Large majorities of Democrats (86%) and independents (71%) expect electricity prices to go up, while even Republicans see more harm than benefit (39% prices up vs 27% down).

• 58% of voters believe the bill would hurt the reliability of the electric grid, including 82% of Democrats and 60% of independents. Similarly, by a 14-point margin, voters say the bill would hurt the overall U.S. economy (55% hurt, 41% help).

Clean energy investments have crossover appeal, with many Republican voters opposed to cuts in the budget bill.

•  Nearly six in 10 Republicans (57%) say it’s very or fairly important for the United States to increase its use of clean and renewable energy sources like wind power and solar energy. A nearly identical share (56%) say Congress should protect clean energy investments in the budget bill.

• When Republicans hear details about the energy cuts, majorities of Republicans want Democrats to oppose key elements: 62% want Democrats to oppose increasing families’ energy costs by ending clean energy programs, rebates, and incentives, and another 65% want Democrats to oppose provisions that would reduce the reliability of the U.S. electric grid.

• There is little political risk for Democrats in taking this fight: only 18% of voters overall would feel negative toward Senate Democrats who fight to protect clean energy investments, and Republicans are evenly divided (33% positive, 30% negative) on this point.

Messaging

• 3 messages stand out as the most effective frames for opposing efforts to eliminate clean energy investments

1. [COSTS] With energy prices already high, now is the time to produce more energy--not less--to drive down those costs. Cutting clean energy means America produces less energy overall, and that means families will pay even more to keep the lights on. Repealing clean energy investments could increase energy costs by $110 per family starting next year. (43% very persuasive). 

2. [NATIONAL SECURITY] No foreign country should be able to threaten or control America's energy supply. To protect our national security and energy dominance, we need to produce as much energy as possible here at home. American-made clean energy keeps both money and power here in the U.S., not overseas. (46% very persuasive). 

3. [RELIABILITY] We've seen what happens when there is severe heat, ice storms, and other dangerous extreme weather: thousands of people lose power. Lives are put at risk, and businesses lose millions of dollars. Eliminating these investments would leave the electric grid weaker and more vulnerable when we need it most. (39% very persuasive).

Trump’s mishandling of the economy has emerged as a major weakness for him with voters

• Voters believe Trump is making inflation worse, the very issue he was elected to fix. Six in 10 (58%) say he is causing the cost of living to go up, including 59% of independents, 52% of ambivalent Trump voters, and 90% of Harris voters.

• Trump also gets poor marks as a job creator, another core claim of his brand. Only 29% of voters believe he is having a positive impact on the number and availability of good-paying jobs; 57% say he is having a negative impact (42%) or not having an effect either way (15%).

• Confidence in Trump to deal with energy policies has dropped sharply since he took office, falling from 53% in December to 42% as he nears the 100-day mark. Swing voters have lost faith (down 13 points, from 49% to 36%) and even soft Republicans show a steep decline from 82% to 61%. 

• Trump is blamed for rising electricity costs. Voters are nearly three times more likely to say that he is causing their electricity bills to go up (46%) than down (16%). Even on his signature energy issue— gas prices—more voters say he is causing prices to go up (44%) than down (27%). The rest say he is not having an impact.

Trump's clean energy and environmental cuts worry voters

• 53% of voters select a clean energy cut as one of the top three that bother them most. Voters are especially alarmed by ending investments in clean energy manufacturing—threatening over 53,000 jobs—and blocking the production of American-made clean energy. 

• 74% are concerned that Trump got rid of rules that would have protected drinking water from 'forever chemicals', including 49% major concerns. 

• 73% are concerned that Trump stopped holding corporate polluters accountable for harming the environment and people's health and coached them on how they could legally avoid clean air rules, including 48% with major concerns. 

• 71% are concerned that Trump eliminated a record number of clean air and water protections and rolled back rules that were already reducing mercury, arsenic, and lead pollution from power plants and other toxic pollution from cars, trucks, and buses including 46% with major concerns 

• 71% are concerned that Trump Ended programs to improve people’s health in communities with high levels of pollution, which can cause asthma, heart problems, and other illnesses, including 48% with major concerns.

Young Voters

• 72% of Americans under the age of 35 say Democrats in Congress should oppose Donald Trump if he tries to eliminate investments in clean energy in the United States. 

• 85% of Americans under the age of 35 say that the government should invest in clean energy to reduce pollution and ensure cleaner air and water. 

• 79% of Americans under the age of 35 say that the government should invest in clean energy to lower people’s energy costs. 

• 80% of  Americans under the age of 35 say that the government should invest in clean energy to create and keep good jobs in the United States. 

• Americans under the age of 35 are more likely to believe that investing in clean energy strengthens America's energy independence compared to the national sample by +7pp (82% to 89%). 

• Americans under the age of 35 are more likely to believe that cutting government investments in clean energy will drive up energy costs compared to the national sample by +11pp (63% to 74%). 

• 43% of Americans under the age of 35 approve of the IRA. 

• 68% Americans under the age of 35 disapprove of cutting investments in clean energy. 

• 62% Americans under the age of 35 disapprove of  getting rid of limits on air pollution from vehicles and industrial facilities. 

• 77% disapprove of getting rid of programs that help farmers deal with droughts and extreme weather. 

• 55% say they are not confident in Trump’s ability to deal with energy costs compared to just 46% who said the same in December. 

• 57% are not confident in Trump’s ability to deal with inflation and cost of living.

• 53% are not confident in Trump’s ability to deal with gas prices, which rose from 41% in December.

• 52% said they are not confident in Trump’s ability to create good-paying jobs, a 10 point jump from December. 

• A plurality (48%) of Americans, including 56% of independents and even 18% of Republicans, believe Donald Trump is raising their electricity bills. 

• 78% of voters say that, because increasing the number of electric vehicles on the road reduces air pollution, the government should support EV development.

• 7-in-10 voters (71%) and swing voters (70%) say that the federal government should strengthen pollution standards to encourage companies to build cleaner and more electric heavy-duty trucks and buses.  62% of non-MAGA Republicans agree. 

• 91% of voters say that it is important for the US auto industry to prioritize making cars that are more fuel efficient, including 89% of Republicans, 88% of MAGA voters, and 92% of non-MAGA voters. 

• 85% of voters want the government to make electric vehicles more affordable for average Americans and working families. After messaging, support increased across all Republicans (+2pp), MAGA Republicans  (+1pp), and non-MAGA Republicans (+4pp).

• Voters want legislation that decreases the costs of buying an EV. 76% of voters want the federal government to give tax breaks and rebates to help more Americans afford plug-in hybrid vehicles. 

• 57% of voters, including over half of non-MAGA Republicans (52%),  say that because electric vehicles use electricity, which costs less than gasoline, electric vehicle drivers save as much as $2,100 per year in fuel savings to be persuasive.

• 79% of voters say that the US auto industry would be better off if the federal government passed policies that make electric vehicles more affordable and built more electric vehicle charging stations.

• Costs and Health/Pollution are most effective at increasing opposition to the EO, and Costs increases disapproval of Trump on energy/environment.

• Costs more clearly outperforms Health/Pollution in increasing our margin of opposition to the executive order (opposition minus support).

Messages Tested

• [Costs] By withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, the Trump administration will raise Americans' costs and expose us to more of the devastating impacts of climate change. 

• [Health & Pollution] By withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, the Trump administration is putting our health and our families at risk. The pollution that drives climate change doesn't just warm the planet--it's the same toxic pollution that gets into the air we breathe and the water we drink. 

• [Moral Obligation/China] By withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, the Trump administration is ignoring our moral obligation to lead and instead empowering other nations like China.

• [Oil & Gas Lobby] By withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, the Trump administration is prioritizing the short-term profits of big oil and gas companies and CEOs that helped fund Trump's campaign over the interests of the American people.