By Jordan Meadows
Staff Writer
In a presentation last Thursday titled Common Ground in the Battlegrounds, researchers from the Program for Public Consultation and the Congressional Management Foundation examined polling showing substantial bipartisan agreement across a wide range of policy issues, challenging the assumption that Americans are as politically polarized as their elected representatives.
The presentation featured Dr. Steven Kull, director of the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy; Charles Lewitus, the program’s associate director; and Jen Daulby, chief executive officer of the Congressional Management Foundation.
The discussion focused on findings from surveys conducted in competitive electoral battlegrounds, with the goal of helping journalists, policymakers, and the public better understand what voters actually support.
Lewitus outlined the breadth of the findings, reporting that researchers identified 101 policies with bipartisan majority support in at least two-thirds of the battleground states and districts surveyed. Of those, 82 policies had bipartisan support in every battleground surveyed. The results suggest that voters who identify with opposing political parties can agree on concrete approaches to addressing national problems.
On abortion, researchers found bipartisan majorities in every battleground surveyed opposed making it a serious crime for doctors to provide abortions before fetal viability. Respondents also supported policies designed to protect access to birth control, including prohibiting states from restricting or banning it.
On policing, bipartisan support extended to requiring officers to intervene when colleagues use excessive force and establishing a national database documenting police misconduct. Researchers also found overwhelming support for allowing people who have completed their sentences to pursue employment and professional licenses without being automatically disqualified solely because of past criminal records.
Voters also supported greater disclosure of campaign-related spending and the creation of independent, balanced commissions to draw congressional districts. Ranked-choice voting received bipartisan majority support in 31 of the 39 battlegrounds surveyed, making it less universally popular than several other proposals but still demonstrating agreement across many politically competitive areas.
Respondents supported requiring congressional authorization for military action, automatically ending funding for a president-initiated military operation after 60 days without congressional approval, and prohibiting a president from authorizing the first use of nuclear weapons without congressional approval. Bipartisan majorities also supported multiple forms of foreign aid, continued U.S. adherence to the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, and continued military assistance to Ukraine.
All 39 battlegrounds for a proposed wealth tax of 2% on wealth exceeding $50 million and 3% on wealth exceeding $1 billion. Respondents also supported taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income for very high-income households.
Kull argued that the findings challenge the widespread perception that the American public is fundamentally as polarized as Congress.
“So, there’s a lot of common ground, and it seems that there’s basically a kind of coherent public voice on many issues, and that voice is not well heard,” Kull said.
According to Kull, members of Congress often rely on feedback from people who voluntarily contact their offices, including highly engaged constituents and interest groups. Such feedback can provide an incomplete picture of the views held by the broader electorate.
Kull also emphasized the role of journalism in addressing this disconnect. Rather than treating public opinion polls as occasional standalone stories, he encouraged reporters to incorporate relevant polling into routine coverage of legislation, policy debates and congressional votes.
“It’s all about making the public’s view part of the news, part of the story,” Kull said during the question-and-answer session. “We know what Republicans in Congress think, we know what Democrats in Congress think, we know what the leadership thinks, we know what a lot of interest groups think. It’s important to know what the public thinks as well.”
Both major parties face concerns about their credibility and how responsive they are to ordinary Americans. Simply changing policy positions may not resolve that problem if the public continues to feel excluded from the decision-making process.
Kull said representatives should communicate openly about how they consider public opinion, without necessarily promising to follow it in every instance.
“The public wants members of Congress, their elected representatives, to have a kind of collaborative relationship with the people they represent,” Kull said.
Jen Daulby connected the findings to the practical challenges of governing and the work of the Congressional Management Foundation, an organization that seeks to strengthen Congress through leadership, management, education and bipartisan relationship-building.
Drawing on decades of experience working with congressional offices, she argued that the central question is not simply whether lawmakers know which issues matter to Americans, but why broad public agreement does not translate more consistently into legislation.
Daulby also challenged the perception that Congress operates exclusively through partisan conflict. According to her, more bipartisan bills pass Congress each year than partisan bills, but high-profile coverage often concentrates on major legislation passed along narrow party-line margins.
