Congressional Race Messaging Study - What Moves House Voters in 2026

Objective and context

This qualitative study sought to understand what messaging and issues drive voter decisions in competitive House races for the 2026 midterms. Across three prompts, respondents converged on a preference for practical, local problem‑solving and measurable delivery over ideological performance.

What moves voters (cross‑question learnings)

Voters favor a results‑first representative who can “bring home the boring wins”-roads, culverts, broadband that works, rural clinics and EMS, lower drug costs, and sensible permitting. As Leslie Bean put it, “Bring home the boring wins… then we can talk values all day.” Cross‑party cooperation is accepted only if it yields verifiable outcomes; gridlock is tolerated solely as a tactical brake, not a virtue. They demand proof‑of‑performance (“Show me the receipts,” Christopher Jackson) and want clear red lines where compromise is off the table (e.g., abortion access/voting rights/climate for some; border/order or “life and gun rights” for others).

Top personal concerns are pocketbook and service stability: predictable healthcare costs and price transparency (surprise bills, Rx), survival of rural hospitals/EMS, reliable local infrastructure and utilities, and truthful broadband (actual upload speeds, not marketing). Housing as infrastructure surfaces for urban/metro progressives, while a smaller cohort emphasizes data privacy/right‑to‑repair. In ads, the message that cuts through is short, plain, and specific: one local deliverable with a number, a date/deadline, and a credible pay‑for; face‑to‑camera, low‑production, with visible accountability (posted votes, monthly progress updates, reachable phone line). Voters explicitly reject “magic money” and theatrics. Divergences include stronger border/E‑Verify language for some (e.g., Edwin Huffman), and civil‑liberties oversight and donor transparency for others (e.g., Timothy Hammond).

Persona correlations and nuance

• Rural trades/maintenance (mid‑40s–50s, male): Operational fixes (roads/bridges/culverts, diesel/fleets), strict pay‑fors, and willingness to buck party for district interests; often pair pragmatism with law‑and‑order/border cues (e.g., Jacob Borders, Edwin Huffman).
• Rural professionals/small‑town business (older, higher income): Demand technical design and enforcement (broadband service‑level guarantees, penalties; national privacy rules) and verifiable proof (e.g., Christopher Jackson).
• Healthcare workers/lower‑income rural women: Prioritize healthcare affordability and local clinic/hospital survival; respond to calm, plain‑spoken competence and telehealth‑ready broadband (e.g., Leslie Bean).
• Urban/metro progressive civic volunteers: Elevate housing as infrastructure, climate‑smart upgrades, donor transparency (no corporate PACs), and civil‑liberties oversight (e.g., Timothy Hammond).
• Immigrant/limited‑status caretakers: Casework, language access, predictable sliding fees, and visa/work permission; value multilingual constituent service and walk‑in access (e.g., Robin Patni).
• Tech/regulatory minority (cross‑cutting): Emphasize data privacy, enforceable broadband performance, and right‑to‑repair; prefer concrete oversight mechanisms (e.g., Christopher Jackson, Jacob Borders).

Recommendations

• Lead with “boring, verifiable wins.” One concrete local fix per asset with a number, date/deadline, and credible pay‑for; show past wins and on‑screen receipts.
• Ad format: plain talk, low‑production. Face‑to‑camera, real locations, no music; include accountability (three promises, three deadlines, monthly progress post) and constituent access (walk‑in hours, reachable phone, multilingual help).
• Core issue frame: Healthcare price transparency and rural EMS survival; roads/culverts/utilities; truthful broadband. Segment secondary cues: housing as infrastructure; border/E‑Verify; donor transparency; civil‑liberties oversight; data privacy/right‑to‑repair.
• Infrastructure for credibility: Launch a Receipts Hub + Progress Tracker with posted votes, updates, and citations; implement an internal Policy‑to‑Promise gate to vet feasibility, costs, and pay‑fors.

Risks and guardrails

• Over‑promising timelines/savings: Use feasibility buffers and transparent updates.
• Segment clashes on red lines: Segment creative; avoid mixing conflicting cues in one flight; pre‑test.
• Legal/fact risk on numbers/pay‑fors: Source every claim; legal pass; public footnotes.
• Constituent services overload: Phase staffing; publish realistic SLAs (e.g., 48‑hour callbacks).
• Directional sample (n=6): Validate with broader polling before major commits.

Next steps and measurement

1. 30‑Second Specificity Template and Plain‑Talk Production Kit (weeks 1–4).
2. Receipts Hub (ADA/low‑bandwidth) with monthly updates; QR from ads (launch by week 6).
3. Healthcare/EMS message pack and segment toggles for housing, border, transparency, privacy (weeks 1–6).
4. Local proof inventory (roads, clinics, fiber trenches, EMS) for on‑screen receipts (8 weeks initial).
5. A/B test plain vs polished, inclusion of number/date/pay‑for, and segment red‑line language; scale winners (start week 3, ongoing).

• KPIs: Specificity Compliance Rate (≥85% by March, ≥95% by June); Receipts Hub Engagement (5–10% QR CTR; >1:20 avg time); Trust/Competence Lift (“Delivers local results with clear pay‑fors” +8–12 pts by July); Constituent Service SLA (90% human answer; 95% callbacks ≤48h); Ad Efficiency (plain ≥20% lower CPV and ≥2‑pt lift).