400+ focus groups of voters shows human nature of voters?

After conducting hundreds of focus groups with voters in the United States, one commentator describes the participants:

Photo by Matheus Bertelli on Pexels.com

Since that moment, I’ve conducted more than 400 focus groups with thousands of voters across the political spectrum. To my knowledge, this is the largest and most consistent qualitative study of voter sentiment during the Trump era. Here’s what I’ve learned: People are wild. They are full of contradictions. They lament our deep political divisions while raging about their political enemies. They believe in grace but cut their Trumpy brother out of their life forever. They’re married to an immigrant but voted for the guy who wants to deport millions of people who have the same immigration status as their wife. They hate the government and want to lower the national debt, but they also want the government to spend more to help them and their communities. They call themselves pro-life but believe in a woman’s right to choose. I could go on.

This suggests voters have multiple motivations and opinions. They are not necessarily consistent in their principles and actions. They react to both what is immediately around them and broader social forces and changes.

In other words, the voters are people. They are doing their best to make sense of the world around them. Translating those beliefs and responses into neatly packaged political party platforms or bundles of issues that candidates consistently talk about is not easy.

With all that said, listening to voters can be helpful:

Listening to voters is a cheat code for understanding politics—democracy, after all, is the collective will of the voters—yet few people in politics do it. If you’re running a campaign, you might do a series of focus groups with voters in your district or state. If you’re a politician, you might go on “listening tours,” chat with people at the state fair, or host campaign events. But rarely do politicians and campaigns take the time to talk in-depth about why people feel the way they do.

The reality is, the closer you get to institutional politics, the further you are from the people whom politics and government are supposed to serve. Washington is less a swamp than a bubble, inside of which the rest of America becomes an abstraction.

Where is there room to find common ground or interests? Are there ways to connect with what people are experiencing or care about beyond providing talking points and political tactics?

This could also be linked to the reasons Americans often like local politics and government: these are potential neighbors who have more of a stake and interest in day-to-day community life. Go up to the regional or state or national level and it can be hard to connect to all the experiences and concerns voters have.

The suburban dimension to “The Christian Women Who Power the American Right”

Sociologist Katie Gaddini argues in Esther’s Army: The Christian Women Who Power the American Right that conservative women in the suburbs helped Donald Trump become president twice. Here is how she describes “the white suburbanites” (the title for Chapter 6 in the book):

Photo by David Kouakou on Pexels.com

The debate Rebekah had with her Bible study group exemplifies how American suburbia has emerged as a political battleground for the Left and Right. Poised between the Republican-dominated rural areas and the Democratic stronghold of many American cities, the suburbs have been up for grabs since the Republicans lost their dominance there in the 1990s. The partisan nature of suburbia means that when political polarization ripples across the nation, it often feels acute there. This heightened sense of division was especially pronounced during the peak of the pandemic. (136)

But that’s where the commonality between my story and that of the women I researched ends. I moved to Boston in 2008 and continued to hop from one city to another over the next fifteen years: from Boston to Johannesburg to San Francisco, Madrid, London, and then, finally, returning to the American suburban sprawl of my childhood. Along the way, I left evangelicalism, and the Republican party. Meeting women like Rebekah, around my age, who shared a similar background, help up a mirror of what my life might have looked like if i had never left. Maybe I, too, would have taken up the mantle alongside other White middle-class Christian women to defend the suburbs from outsiders. (139)

“I wept when I heard him say that he would protect us,” a wealthy Christian suburban woman told me after hearing Trump at a rally in Coachella, a city in California. Among the diverse groups of people who brought Trump back to the White House in 2024, White Christian suburban women were some of his most enthusiastic supporters. His message of preserving the version of suburbia they knew and loved resonated with them. A solid 60 percent voted for him, Rebekah and Aimee included. (150)

In this sense, Trump endorses suburban women’s role. When he vows to protect the suburbs through strict immigration and housing policies, he is promising to maintain the racial and class homogeneity that has long defined American suburbia. His message validates White Christian women’s decision to live there, framing it as a moral reward. (154)

When Americans started moving to the suburbs in large numbers, first at the end of the 1800s and early 1900s and then more so in the postwar era, commentators expected the suburbs to be conservative. These were suburban residents with means, homeowners, people who emphasized family life away from the big city. (This addressed broader patterns but did not consider the broad range of people and communities across suburbia).

As Gaddini notes, the suburbs have changed as they are more diverse now in terms of race and ethnicity, social class, and religion. This has intersected with politics as plenty of suburbanites vote for Democrats and some suburban communities pursue what might be perceived as more liberal policies.

By considering gender among conservative voters, this book contributes to understanding the American suburbs. Gaddini argues conservative suburban women saw their suburban life and communities as under threat, whether from political liberals and their policies or responses to the pandemic or discussions and actions related to race. The suburban communities to which they had moved – and they would often see as having done so by their own efforts – could decline and they did not want to see this happen. They wanted to hear a national leader push back and say that the idealized suburban life would be defended.

What happens to these more conservative suburban pockets and communities will be interesting to see in coming years. Part of the history of the American suburbs includes exclusion and this will likely continue by a variety of means, including by politics and religion.

Few voters weighing in on suburban Cook County property tax questions

When given a choice at the ballot, few residents of Cook County suburbs decided to vote for or against in recent years:

Photo by Ann H on Pexels.com

Despite Cook County residents’ long, loud complaints about out-of-control property taxes and government spending, a majority of them couldn’t be bothered to turn out to vote in recent elections when given the chance to decide whether taxes should be hiked.

About 1 in 5 eligible voters decided the outcome of costly binding property tax questions in various suburbs in the past couple of years, according to a new study from the Cook County treasurer’s office…

Voter turnout in primaries is typically lower than general elections as it is, and even fewer voters participate in local consolidated elections.

But the report also found participation dipped on ballots for property tax questions in particular. It floated a few reasons why people who do vote might skip referendums: the questions are often at the bottom of the ballot or confusingly written…

Previous reports from her office have highlighted higher turnouts in wealthier and whiter areas. While the income trends continued in the 2025 and 2026 elections, there was not enough data to see whether the racial trends shifted because most of the referendums were in majority white communities.

Property taxes are high in Illinois. Even amid generally low voter turnout in local matters, this seems like an issue people might care about. Want to vote on how your property taxes might be used? This is connected to local control and local government, a feature Americans like about suburbs.

It sounds like the factors cited above could be addressed. Don’t bury them at the bottom of the ballot. Make sure they are written in clear language. Help people know what is on the ballot far ahead of time. Put the tax questions on the bigger election cycles. For those who want to promote good governance (rather than even the appearance of sneaking things through on the ballot), this is doable.

I wonder if there would be any traction for elected officials to run on the platform of getting more people involved in local political decisions. Rather than targeting a small portion of voters or a political base, could someone aim to get more people to decide questions like these about property taxes?

Americans divided over 250th celebrations but might unite over soccer?

The US men’s soccer team has started out strong at the World Cup. American flags, sing alongs, celebrations of wins. Might their success bring Americans together in a fractured time? A few thoughts:

Photo by Dar ius on Pexels.com
  1. Americans like sports, both domestic and international.
  2. They may like sports but they really like winning at an international level. The Olympics and World Cup are good examples.
  3. For lots of reasons, the United States is not a world power at soccer – the team is good but not among the best. Do Americans see themselves as an underdog at the World Cup, and, if so, does this help bring people together?
  4. Does the unity while at a game or watching at the same time continue at all past the event or is it a completely in the moment phenomenon?
  5. Which Americans tend to follow soccer? How much does this fandom overlap with enjoying the NFL, MLB, or NBA? How does following soccer fit with political affiliations? Is following soccer seen as a repudiation of “typical” American fandom?
  6. If politics are like sports in certain ways, are sports still more interesting or worthwhile to more Americans (compared to politics)?

What might all these questions lead to? Many may enjoy the World Cup in North America and it could get interesting if the United States makes a deeper run than they have in the past. But conflicts over celebrating July 4th and the leadup to the midterm elections may render any World Cup togetherness a pleasant memory.

The suburban Illinois lawmakers and leaders for and against the BUILD plan

With the BUILD plan under consideration in Illinois, some suburban leaders have announced they are for or against what the bill would provide for:

Photo by Clay Elliot on Pexels.com

Democratic state Sen. Laura Ellman of Naperville is among the plan’s proponents. Ellman and other lawmakers staged a news conference Tuesday in Springfield to outline a slew of proposals aimed at making housing more affordable for owners and renters…

Other suburban sponsors and cosponsors of BUILD-related legislation include state Sens. Mark Walker of Arlington Heights, Adriane Johnson of Buffalo Grove and Cristina Castro of Elgin.

Aligned against them are lawmakers including Republican state Rep. Martin McLaughlin of Barrington Hills; municipal leaders in South Barrington, Barrington Hills, Algonquin and other suburbs; and groups including the Illinois State Association of Counties, the DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference and the Northwest Municipal Conference.

At a city council meeting earlier this month, Naperville Mayor Scott Wehrli said the BUILD proposals promote housing density, not affordability…

McLaughlin hopes pressure from municipal leaders opposed to BUILD will be strong enough to persuade enough Democrats in the General Assembly to break with Pritzker and oppose the legislation.

Illinois has a lot of suburban residents (as does the United States as a whole). I would interested to hear from suburban lawmakers what they are hearing from these residents and voters. How many are for these proposed changes, how many are against? If people think their property values might be threatened, they tend to respond. At the same time, those seeking out housing might also be making their voices heard.

On a related note, if suburban voters are critical in national elections because of the number of them plus the number of suburbanites who might be swayed by particular issues or leaders, might legislative votes in Illinois come down to suburban representatives?

It would also be interesting to hear if there local leaders and communities who see such legislation as providing an opportunity for growth and change in their community. The population in the Chicago region and Illinois has been relatively stagnant in recent decades. Could adding more housing provide a new opportunity to add residents and status?

Taking the NIMBY approach to taxes

As someone who studies suburbs, I am familiar with NIMBY responses to proposed development: residents do not want it near their dwellings, even if they agree it probably needs to be built somewhere. I was reminded of this common response when I read a description of how Americans feel about taxes:

Photo by Mark Youso on Pexels.com

Over the past decade, the share of Americans who believe that their income-tax bill is unfair has climbed by 14percentage points. A majority of Americans, in both parties and at all income levels, say that they are kicking in too much. The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, which teaches people how to conscientiously object to income levies, reports surging interest in its training sessions. Grassroots groups around the country are fighting to “ax the tax.” Most people want rates to go up—just not on them.

Someone should pay taxes, but not me. I like the government programs I participate in (if they even know they are government programs – see later in the article) but someone else should fund them. The money should come from someone or somewhere else.

What does this lead to in the long run? On the NIMBY development side, it tends to put a buffer around wealthier communities who have the resources and voice to fight against development they do not want. Would the tax case equivalent be that certain groups are able to avoid higher taxes being placed on them or certain groups are able to obtain tax cuts while others are not?

At the local, state, and federal levels, it will be interesting to see how different taxing bodies try to close budget holes. There have to be some revenue sources – or cuts? – to make ends meet.

The fate of suburban voters in states that have now redistricted

Elections in the United States are often decided by suburban voters. As voters in cities and suburbs closer to big cities tend to vote for Democrats and voters in rural areas and outer suburbs tend to vote for Republicans, the middle suburbanites are ones both parties want to capture. Where are those voters ending up in new congressional districts a number of states have mapped?

Two examples are worth looking at: first Virginia and then Texas.

And the old and new map in Texas:

These maps shows some of the ways to neutralize voters the party in power does not want to get seats. This can take the form of long and skinny districts that go from near a big city and out into the countryside. Vary where this district starts and ends or the width of the district and those key suburban voters can be pulled in a direction that party wants.

This is often a shift away from more square or rectangular shapes that might cover geographies that are similar to each other: voters in big cities in a district with largely similar voters, suburbanites matched with suburbanites, and small towns and rural areas together.

How might this change the influence of the voters in middle suburbia? The 2026 mid-terms could offer some hints and I am sure there will be a lot of analysis ahead of the 2028 elections.

Voter turnout in the Chicago suburbs slightly up or down last week

Voter turnout numbers in last week’s primary elections show limited change from previous years:

Photo by Edmond Dantu00e8s on Pexels.com

Voter turnout Tuesday was greater than 2022’s midterm primary in suburban Cook, DuPage and Kane counties, but lower than four years ago in Lake, McHenry and Will counties…

DuPage County is currently reporting the highest turnout level at 24.6%, which could increase when mail-in stragglers are eventually reported. In the 2022 midterm primary, DuPage was the only county with more than 20% turnout among the suburban collar counties…

Lake County had the lowest voter turnout in the suburbs at 17.7% Tuesday. That’s down from 18.4% in 2022…

McHenry County is currently reporting 18% voter turnout, down from 19.6% in 2022. In Will County, turnout was 19.1% Tuesday, down slightly from 19.5% in 2022.

Most of the article tries to explain why these numbers are what they are. The underlying question seems to be this: have Americans eligible to vote lost interest in voting? About a fifth of suburban voters do so. What, if anything, would really change that number?

The apathy of suburban voters also matters because candidates will want their votes in numerous elections in November and in 2028. In plenty of states, suburbanites will determine elections because of the number of people who live in such places and the presence of both Democrats and Republicans.

Of course, in later races that are not really contested, these low turnout primary votes then set who will win the November election. To not vote in some primaries means voters will have limited choices in November.

Funding local services via property taxes or state funds

What should be the formula by which local governments and the state of Illinois contribute monies for local services? There might be change coming:

Photo by KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA on Pexels.com

The concern centers on the Local Government Distributive Fund, the long-standing revenue-sharing mechanism that sends a portion of state income tax collections to cities and towns across Illinois.

Illinois mayors are warning that Pritzker’s proposed fiscal year 2027 budget plan reduces the share of state income-tax revenue distributed to local governments, a shift that would force many municipalities to make tough choices.

The proposal would lower the municipal share of income tax revenue distributed through the fund from 6.47% to 6.23%, meaning cities and villages would receive about $60 million less than they would under the current formula. Lawmakers have reduced that share significantly over the years, starting with a substantial cut from the 10% level that persisted prior to 2011 when lawmakers significantly increased the income tax.

While the change would send more money to the state, it would squeeze local governments that rely heavily on property taxes to fund services. Pulling additional dollars from the LGDF risks shifting the burden onto Illinois homeowners, who already face some of the highest property tax bills in the country. Property taxes are set locally, but state decisions about revenue sharing inevitably shape how much local governments must rely on them. 

Several matters appear to be at play:

  1. Local residents and leaders tend to like more local oversight of government and funds. But they are not necessarily opposed to getting funds from elsewhere – like the state – to then spend locally.
  2. Who should be making “tough choices”? Let’s say the formula is reconfigured; what local services are at risk for Illinois communities? Or where is that extra money the state is keeping then being spent? Would that money be spent in ways that helps lot of people?
  3. Property taxes are a hot button issue in many places. People like their property values going up but they do not like their property taxes going up along with that. And property taxes pay for the local services that help support their property values (schools, local amenities, etc.). If people don’t want property taxes to keep going up, what would local communities actually cut or scale back?

Percentage-wise, the formula change seems small but this gets at a fundamental issue in the American political and social system: there are multiple layers of government that provide for residents. Americans tend to like local control but townships, counties, states, and the federal government also provide services. The optimal distribution of funding and services is up for negotiation and the debate grows stronger when there is less money to go around.

IL governor’s push to have statewide residential zoning

In his State of the State address, Governor JB Pritzker said he supports statewide zoning changes to promote more housing:

Photo by u0414u0438u0430u043du0430 u0414u0443u043du0430u0435u0432u0430 on Pexels.com

Gov. JB Pritzker will propose a statewide zoning law in his State of the State address on Wednesday, drastically limiting the authority local governments have to control what types of housing structures can be built on land that’s zoned residential…

A study published last year by the University of Illinois found that the state is about 142,000 units of housing short and would need to build 227,000 over the next five years to keep up with demand. That equals about 45,000 new homes a year — nearly double the five-year average of about 19,000 built annually between 2019 and 2024…

Pritzker’s office says the plan includes a tiered framework to permit multi-unit housing by right in all but the smallest lots zoned for residential use. Local zoning boards would no longer be allowed to prohibit property owners from building multi-unit housing on residential lots exceeding 2,500 square feet…06

More straightforward, accessory dwelling units — attached or detached secondary residences such as granny flats, backyard cottages and above-garage apartments — would be legalized on all properties zoned for residential use. The city of Chicago moved last year to relax its 60-year ban on granny flats. And legislation was filed in Springfield last year to ban local governments from prohibiting the units. But it has not moved.

Three thoughts in response to this proposal:

  1. One feature Americans tend to like about suburbs and local governments is that they have control over land use decisions, not people located elsewhere. This means residents have more direct say about who might be there neighbor or what might be located next door. In roughly the last one hundred years, zoning in suburbs is then used to protect single-family homes and their values. Messing with this established use is not easy; as the article briefly notes: “the effort is likely to be met with stiff pushback.”
  2. Illinois is not the first state to pursue this so there are other models to look at and see whether similar legislation has had positive effects. This has primarily occurred in blue states with more expensive housing markets than Illinois.
  3. It will be interesting to see how different parts or communities in Illinois respond to this. The Chicago area housing market is different than downstate. How will wealthier suburban communities react? Which communities are most eager to construct affordable or missing-middle housing? Where would developers and builders want to construct housing if these statewide guidelines are passed?